Candidate comparison matrix template
Line finalists up side by side on the criteria that matter. Free for Canadian employers. Fill in the [HIGHLIGHTED] blanks and remove anything that doesn't apply.
Table 1: Recruitment Process Identification
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| Organization | [ORGANIZATION_NAME] |
| Position Title | [JOB_TITLE] |
| Reports To | [REPORTS_TO_TITLE] |
| Requisition Number | [FORM_ID] |
| Hiring Manager / Evaluator | [OWNER_OR_MANAGER] |
| Effective Date | [EFFECTIVE_DATE] |
| Document Storage Location | [FILE_LOCATION] |
1. Instructions & Data Definitions
1.1 Purpose and Assessment Process
This matrix provides a structured, evidence-based method for evaluating and comparing candidates for [JOB_TITLE]. Standardized scoring protects the hiring process against bias and ensures decisions align with Bona Fide Occupational Requirements (BFORs).
The hiring manager or designated interviewer must complete this evaluation independently for each shortlisted candidate immediately following interview stages, practical skills assessments, and reference checks. Evaluators must assess all candidates against identical criteria and scoring anchors.
Any candidate requiring accessibility-related accommodation during the assessment process must be accommodated up to the point of undue hardship in accordance with applicable jurisdictional human rights and accessibility standards. Accommodation requests do not affect candidate scoring.
Inquiries regarding prohibited human rights grounds—including but not limited to age, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed or religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, disability, or record of offences—are strictly prohibited during all assessment phases.
1.2 Data Definitions and Rating Anchors
Evaluators must assign a whole integer from 1 to 5 for each criterion based on verified evidence from resumes, structured interview responses, job simulations, and verified references.
Table 2: Standard Rating Scale and Behavioral Anchors
| Rating | Classification | Operational Definition |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unsatisfactory | Candidate fails to meet the core competency or requirement. Provides no relevant examples or demonstrates unacceptable knowledge gaps. |
| 2 | Marginal | Candidate meets some aspects of the requirement but requires substantial training or direct supervision. Evidence provided is weak or inconsistent. |
| 3 | Fully Competent | Candidate fully meets the standard required for the role. Demonstrates consistent capability, relevant experience, and required operational proficiency. |
| 4 | Exceeds Requirement | Candidate exceeds the baseline standard. Demonstrates advanced knowledge, independent problem-solving, and relevant domain depth. |
| 5 | Exceptional | Candidate demonstrates mastery of the competency. Brings specialized expertise, industry-recognized best practices, and immediate capability to elevate organizational performance. |
2. Core Data Table
The matrix below evaluates candidates across eight core occupational dimensions derived from the approved position description. The sum of all weights must equal 100%.
Table 3: Candidate Evaluation and Scoring Matrix
| Evaluation Criterion | Weight (%) | Evaluation Method | Candidate A Score (1–5) | Candidate A Weighted | Candidate B Score (1–5) | Candidate B Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Technical / Core Job Knowledge | 20% | Structured Interview & Work Sample | [SCORE_A_1] | [WEIGHTED_A_1] | [SCORE_B_1] | [WEIGHTED_B_1] |
| 2. Direct Role Experience | 15% | Resume & Reference Verification | [SCORE_A_2] | [WEIGHTED_A_2] | [SCORE_B_2] | [WEIGHTED_B_2] |
| 3. Problem Solving & Critical Thinking | 15% | Scenario-Based Interview Question | [SCORE_A_3] | [WEIGHTED_A_3] | [SCORE_B_3] | [WEIGHTED_B_3] |
| 4. Communication & Interpersonal Skills | 10% | Interview Observation & Presentation | [SCORE_A_4] | [WEIGHTED_A_4] | [SCORE_B_4] | [WEIGHTED_B_4] |
| 5. Tool, Software & System Proficiency | 10% | Practical Test / Skill Verification | [SCORE_A_5] | [WEIGHTED_A_5] | [SCORE_B_5] | [WEIGHTED_B_5] |
| 6. Teamwork & Stakeholder Collaboration | 10% | Behavioral Interview Questions | [SCORE_A_6] | [WEIGHTED_A_6] | [SCORE_B_6] | [WEIGHTED_B_6] |
| 7. Health, Safety & Compliance Awareness | 10% | Situational Questions & Prior Training | [SCORE_A_7] | [WEIGHTED_A_7] | [SCORE_B_7] | [WEIGHTED_B_7] |
| 8. Adaptability & Workload Management | 10% | Past Experience & Reference Check | [SCORE_A_8] | [WEIGHTED_A_8] | [SCORE_B_8] | [WEIGHTED_B_8] |
| TOTAL | 100% | Comprehensive Assessment | [RAW_SUM_A] | [FINAL_SCORE_A] | [RAW_SUM_B] | [FINAL_SCORE_B] |
3. Status or Scoring Fields
3.1 Mathematical Calculation
Calculations follow standard weighted averages:
- Divide the criterion weight percentage by 100 to determine the decimal weight:
Decimal Weight = Weight % / 100. - Multiply the candidate's raw rating (1.0 to 5.0) by the decimal weight to calculate the weighted criterion score:
Weighted Score = Raw Score * Decimal Weight. - Calculate the candidate's total score by summing all weighted criterion scores:
Final Weighted Score = Sum of all Weighted Scores.
3.2 Decision Thresholds
Final weighted scores determine the candidate recommendation pathway:
Table 4: Decision Thresholds and Action Pathways
| Final Weighted Score | Recommendation Status | Prescribed Action |
|---|---|---|
| 4.20 to 5.00 | Primary Candidate | Proceed to conditional offer of employment pending background and reference clearance. |
| 3.50 to 4.19 | Alternate Candidate | Retain as qualified backup candidate if primary negotiations fail. |
| 2.80 to 3.49 | Conditional Hold | Does not meet immediate baseline for offer. Retain on file for secondary review if talent pool is exhausted. |
| 1.00 to 2.79 | Do Not Proceed | Reject candidate. Issue formal non-selection notice within [N_BUSINESS_DAYS] business days. |
3.3 Worked Example Row
The following row demonstrates an applied evaluation for Criterion 1:
Table 5: Illustrative Worked Example Row
| Evaluation Criterion | Weight (%) | Evaluation Method | Candidate A Score (1–5) | Candidate A Weighted | Candidate B Score (1–5) | Candidate B Weighted | Evaluator Notes / Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXAMPLE: 1. Technical / Core Job Knowledge | 20% | Structured Technical Scenario | 4 | 0.80 | 3 | 0.60 | Candidate A clearly outlined diagnostic troubleshooting steps under industry standards. Candidate B answered correctly but required one prompting question. |
4. Exceptions & Notes
4.1 Accommodation Adjustments
Where a candidate requests assessment accommodation (e.g., adaptive visual interfaces per WCAG guidelines or extended assessment duration per accessible employment standards), the evaluator must document the accommodation provided without altering scoring criteria or weighting.
4.2 Tied Scores
In the event of a tied final weighted score between two candidates (difference < 0.05 points):
- Review the unweighted raw scores in the highest-weighted criteria (Criteria 1, 2, and 3).
- Re-examine verified reference checks specifically targeting the tied competency areas.
- Conduct a targeted follow-up panel interview focused exclusively on core operational requirements.
4.3 Privacy and Document Retention
All evaluation forms, interviewer notes, work samples, and scoring sheets contain candidate personal information. The hiring manager must transfer completed evaluation packages to [FILE_LOCATION] within [N_BUSINESS_DAYS] business days of closing the recruitment competition. [ORGANIZATION_NAME] retains recruitment records for [RETENTION_PERIOD] to defend selection decisions against human rights or employment standards inquiries.
5. Summary & Ownership
5.1 Final Hiring Recommendation
The evaluator must record the final decision below before initiating an employment agreement.
Table 6: Evaluation Summary and Approvals
| Role / Step | Designated Owner | Candidate Recommended | Final Score | Date Completed | Signature / Sign-Off |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lead Evaluator | [OWNER_OR_MANAGER] | [CANDIDATE_NAME] | [FINAL_SCORE_A] | [DD-MMM-YYYY] | [SIGNATURE_RECORD] |
| Final Hiring Approver | [POLICY_OWNER_TITLE] | [CANDIDATE_NAME] | [FINAL_SCORE_A] | [DD-MMM-YYYY] | [SIGNATURE_RECORD] |
What to fill in
| Placeholder | What to enter | Who provides it | Required? |
|---|---|---|---|
| [CANDIDATE_NAME] | Full legal name of recommended candidate | Evaluator / Hiring Manager | Yes |
| [EFFECTIVE_DATE] | Date this comparison matrix template was put into active use | Policy Owner | Yes |
| [FILE_LOCATION] | Secure digital or physical storage path for recruitment records | HR / Office Manager | Yes |
| [FINAL_SCORE_A] | Total calculated weighted score for Candidate A | Evaluator | Yes |
| [FINAL_SCORE_B] | Total calculated weighted score for Candidate B | Evaluator | Yes |
| [FORM_ID] | Requisition or recruitment tracking identifier code | Hiring Manager | Yes |
| [JOB_TITLE] | Approved title of position being hired | Hiring Manager | Yes |
| [N_BUSINESS_DAYS] | Number of days allowed for post-interview disposition notices | Hiring Manager / Owner | Yes |
| [ORGANIZATION_NAME] | Legal operating name of the employer | Owner / Executive | Yes |
| [OWNER_OR_MANAGER] | Name and title of evaluating manager or business owner | Hiring Manager | Yes |
| [POLICY_OWNER_TITLE] | Title of role responsible for overall hiring governance | Owner / Senior Leader | Yes |
| [RAW_SUM_A] | Sum of unweighted scores for Candidate A | Evaluator | Yes |
| [RAW_SUM_B] | Sum of unweighted scores for Candidate B | Evaluator | Yes |
| [REPORTS_TO_TITLE] | Direct supervisor title for the open position | Hiring Manager | Yes |
| [RETENTION_PERIOD] | Required storage duration for recruitment files in [PROVINCE] | Policy Owner / Legal Counsel | Yes |
| [SCORE_A_1] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate A on Criterion 1 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_A_2] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate A on Criterion 2 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_A_3] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate A on Criterion 3 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_A_4] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate A on Criterion 4 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_A_5] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate A on Criterion 5 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_A_6] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate A on Criterion 6 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_A_7] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate A on Criterion 7 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_A_8] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate A on Criterion 8 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_B_1] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate B on Criterion 1 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_B_2] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate B on Criterion 2 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_B_3] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate B on Criterion 3 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_B_4] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate B on Criterion 4 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_B_5] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate B on Criterion 5 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_B_6] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate B on Criterion 6 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_B_7] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate B on Criterion 7 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SCORE_B_8] | Integer rating (1-5) for Candidate B on Criterion 8 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [SIGNATURE_RECORD] | Digital timestamp or handwritten signature | Evaluator / Approver | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_A_1] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate A on Criterion 1 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_A_2] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate A on Criterion 2 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_A_3] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate A on Criterion 3 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_A_4] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate A on Criterion 4 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_A_5] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate A on Criterion 5 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_A_6] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate A on Criterion 6 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_A_7] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate A on Criterion 7 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_A_8] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate A on Criterion 8 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_B_1] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate B on Criterion 1 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_B_2] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate B on Criterion 2 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_B_3] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate B on Criterion 3 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_B_4] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate B on Criterion 4 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_B_5] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate B on Criterion 5 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_B_6] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate B on Criterion 6 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_B_7] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate B on Criterion 7 | Evaluator | Yes |
| [WEIGHTED_B_8] | Calculated weighted score for Candidate B on Criterion 8 | Evaluator | Yes |
Official sources
Government and professional sources this template was checked against.
- Accessibility Standards Canada — Employment
- Government of Canada — Inclusive Workplace
- W3C — Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- CIPD — Recruitment Resources
This template is general information for Canadian employers, not legal advice. Employment standards, human rights and privacy rules differ by province. Check them before you use it.
Hire people, not paperwork
Staffkin runs the whole hire in one place: prescreens, scored interviews, one-click reference checks and onboarding checklists. Free for your first job.
Start free