Compare the same evidence, not different sales pitches
You can start with one provider and the written evidence that provider has already given you, such as a scope document, a draft agreement, or a published outcomes page. Record the answer, the evidence supplied, what is still unresolved, and the student's reaction after meeting the person who would actually do the work. Add a second or third provider after those conversations, and ask each one the same core questions.
Expect to fill this in over more than one sitting. Many cells stay open until a provider answers in writing or on a call.
This page does not save your entries. They stay in this browser tab only. Before you leave or reload, use the Copy this comparison button at the bottom of the page and paste the result into your own document. You can continue the comparison there. This page cannot bring copied entries back in.
IvyReady is a college admissions consulting firm. Record IvyReady on this same card beside every other provider you are considering.
Leave a cell blank until you have an answer. This card does not assign a quality score, and it cannot predict an admission result.
Name the providers
Enter each firm or provider name. That name is the firm you are comparing. It is separate from the primary counselor, who may be a different person.
One provider with many cells still blank is a valid start. The copied comparison marks each empty cell as (blank), so you can see what is still open.
1) Who will actually work with the student?
If a table is wider than your screen, swipe or scroll sideways inside it to reach the second and third providers and any remaining columns.
| Check | Provider A | Provider B | Provider C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary counselor named | |||
| Met primary counselor before signing | |||
| Who builds the college list? | |||
| Who gives essay feedback? | |||
| Who performs final application review? | |||
| Backup coverage explained |
2) What is included, excluded, and time-bounded?
| Scope item | Provider A | Provider B | Provider C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Start / end date | |||
| Meeting cadence | |||
| College-list work | |||
| Essay feedback | |||
| Application review | |||
| Parent communication | |||
| Between-meeting support | |||
| Excluded or extra-cost work |
Quoted price and budget fit
Record the price the provider quoted. Budget fit is the family's judgment about that quote. It is not a score.
| Price item | Provider A | Provider B | Provider C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quoted package fee or hourly rate | |||
| What the quoted price includes | |||
| Payment terms and timing | |||
| Family budget fit |
3) Test the claimed expertise with a real task
Ask each provider one or two of the same scenario questions:
- A student's university-wide profile looks strong, but the intended major is capacity-limited. What would you verify before calling the school a target or likely?
- A Bay Area family is mixing UC, CSU, and Common App colleges. What changes across systems, and which official sources would you check?
- A school scattergram looks encouraging. What can we conclude, and what can we not conclude?
| Provider | Answer | Official source or evidence used | Open question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provider A | |||
| Provider B | |||
| Provider C |
4) Examine results claims
For any acceptance percentage, multiplier, scholarship number, or selective-college list, record enough information to understand what the claim represents. Do not convert a marketing statistic into a promise about your student.
| Provider | Claim | Years / cohort | Denominator | Relevant service | What remains unknown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provider A | |||||
| Provider B | |||||
| Provider C |
5) Ethics and student ownership
| Question | Provider A | Provider B | Provider C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guarantees admission or scholarships? | |||
| Writes or substantially rewrites student work? | |||
| Referral/placement compensation or other financial ties? | |||
| AI use explained? | |||
| Student data handling explained? |
6) Student fit
After the student meets the actual counselor, have the student answer separately:
- Did this person listen before recommending a plan?
- Could I disagree with this person?
- Did I leave understanding my next step more clearly?
- Would this process make me more independent or more dependent?
| Student view | Provider A | Provider B | Provider C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Student's reaction after the meeting |
7) Final decision
| Provider | Documented strengths | Unresolved risk | Student view | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provider A | ||||
| Provider B | ||||
| Provider C |
Completed hypothetical example
A family comparing two providers learns that Provider A identifies the assigned counselor, supplies a written scope, explains how current UC and CSU rules are checked, and documents the years and cohort behind an outcomes claim. Provider B emphasizes the founder's credentials and a selective-college acceptance list, but the family has not met the assigned counselor and still does not know who reviews essays near deadlines.
The scorecard does not declare Provider A universally better. It shows that the family currently has more verified information about Provider A and a clearer list of follow-ups for Provider B.
Use this scorecard with Questions to Ask Before Hiring a College Admissions Consultant.
Use the right page for the next conversation
This scorecard is for comparing consulting firms after your calls. For a separate institutional conversation, use Questions to Ask a College Admissions Counselor.
If Ivy League support is part of the comparison, apply this same card while reviewing IvyReady's Ivy League admissions consulting.