Free 100-point Australian evaluation

Workshop software evaluation scorecard.

Replace feature-list guesswork with ten weighted workflow tests, strict evidence rules and six requirements no workshop should trade away.

100 total points10 demonstrated criteriaLast verified 6 August 2026

Use one real job

Make every vendor run the same imperfect, ordinary booking-to-payment scenario.

Score proof, not promises

An untested claim receives zero until the workshop sees it work in its own scenario.

Protect the non-negotiables

A failed security, privacy, GST, migration, mobile or mandatory-integration test overrides the total.

Interactive scorecard

Score what the workshop can actually prove.

Rate every criterion from zero to five after the demonstration. The weighted result remains withheld until all ten are scored, preventing missing evidence from quietly inflating a vendor's result.

Criterion 1 · 16 points

Whole-job continuity

Demonstrated rating

Does one real job remain connected from future booking and repair order through technician work, customer decision, invoice and payment?

Why it matters

Disconnected records force reception to copy context, reconstruct decisions and correct avoidable mistakes at every handover.

Proof to request

A live booking-to-payment demonstration using one repair record, plus an explanation of which information carries forward automatically.

Demo test

Prepare tomorrow's booking, receive the vehicle, complete labour and parts, capture an approval, issue the invoice and record payment without rebuilding the job.

Red flags to watch

A booking becomes a separate invoice or job with lost context
Staff must copy approved work between screens
The demonstrator changes records or scenarios halfway through

Workshop HQ evidence: Workshop HQ keeps the booking, repair order, technician activity, inspection, customer response and invoice attached to the same operational story. Inspect the connected repair-order workflow.

Criterion 2 · 14 points

Live workshop control

Demonstrated rating

Can reception see current work, customer promise times, technician activity, blockers and waiting decisions early enough to act?

Why it matters

A report produced after the day ends cannot warn the team that a promised collection is already at risk.

Proof to request

A current-work view that can explain why a job is waiting, who owns the next action and which customer commitment is most urgent.

Demo test

Create two jobs with different promise times, add a parts blocker and an unanswered approval, then ask the system which job needs attention first.

Red flags to watch

Status depends on staff remembering a separate board or spreadsheet
Promise times disappear after the booking
The dashboard counts jobs but cannot explain their next action

Workshop HQ evidence: Workshop HQ combines current job status, promise times, technician clocks, checksheet progress, customer decisions and blockers. Inspect live workshop visibility.

Criterion 3 · 12 points

Technician usability

Demonstrated rating

Can a technician complete the common floor workflow quickly on the phone or workshop device they will actually carry?

Why it matters

A platform can look impressive in the office and still fail when technicians return to paper, shared logins or repeated trips to reception.

Proof to request

A role-controlled technician view demonstrated on a normal mobile device, not only a desktop administrator account.

Demo test

Have a technician open assigned work, clock on, read the concern, complete a check, record a measurement and attach a photo and video.

Red flags to watch

Technicians need the full front-office interface
Common actions require desktop-only navigation
The workflow relies on shared staff credentials

Workshop HQ evidence: Workshop HQ gives technicians a focused mobile workspace for assigned jobs, clocks, checksheets, measurements, notes, photos and video. Inspect the technician mobile workflow.

Criterion 4 · 14 points

Customer transparency and decisions

Demonstrated rating

Can the customer understand the vehicle finding, see relevant evidence and make a recorded decision in one clear private view?

Why it matters

Motorists should not have to approve unfamiliar repairs from an unexplained verbal claim or a collection of unlabelled photos.

Proof to request

The exact customer view showing job stage, structured inspection result, measurement, explanation, photos or video, recommendation, price and response.

Demo test

Fail one inspection item, add a measurement and visual evidence, group the related work, then approve one recommendation, decline another and ask a question.

Red flags to watch

Evidence is sent separately from the recommendation or price
The portal exposes internal workshop notes or controls
Customer responses do not return to the repair order

Workshop HQ evidence: Workshop HQ presents customer-facing job stages, customised checksheets, measurements, photos, video, recommendations and decisions in a private branded portal. Inspect the customer transparency workflow.

Criterion 5 · 10 points

Commercial continuity and invoicing

Demonstrated rating

Do authorised labour, parts and recommendations carry into a correct Australian invoice with clear GST and payment records?

Why it matters

Rebuilding the financial record from job notes increases missed charges, incorrect totals and disputes about what the customer approved.

Proof to request

A completed repair order converted into an itemised invoice, with AUD, ex-GST, GST, inclusive totals and the approval context still available.

Demo test

Approve additional work, complete it, create the invoice, reconcile every total and record a full or partial payment.

Red flags to watch

Approved work must be retyped into the invoice
GST totals cannot be reconciled line by line
Payment status has no clear relationship to the invoice balance

Workshop HQ evidence: Workshop HQ carries connected repair-order work into Australian-dollar invoices with clear GST and payment records. Inspect Australian workshop invoicing.

Criterion 6 · 10 points

Security and data control

Demonstrated rating

Can the vendor demonstrate individual access, role boundaries, workshop separation, protected customer media, audit history, backups and data control?

Why it matters

Workshop systems hold customer, vehicle, staff and financial information that should not depend on shared passwords or vague hosting claims.

Proof to request

Current security and hosting documentation plus a live role-boundary, customer-link and audit-history demonstration.

Demo test

Attempt to access owner controls as a technician, inspect a customer link, review an important change and explain backup and export recovery.

Red flags to watch

Shared logins are the normal staff model
Customer photos or reports use permanent public links
The vendor cannot explain data location, separation or recovery

Workshop HQ evidence: Workshop HQ publishes role, MFA, tenant-separation, private-media, customer-portal, audit, backup and Sydney core-hosting evidence. Inspect security and Australian hosting.

Criterion 7 · 8 points

Migration and data portability

Demonstrated rating

Can the workshop test an import, review exceptions, preserve required history and export its records without an unsafe all-or-nothing cutover?

Why it matters

A good demonstration is irrelevant if the move loses critical records, creates duplicates or leaves the workshop trapped in an unusable system.

Proof to request

A representative trial import, exception report, rollback explanation and a sample export covering the records the workshop must retain.

Demo test

Import a realistic sample containing customers, vehicles and imperfect source data; review matches and errors before committing anything.

Red flags to watch

The first import must be performed directly in the live account
Exceptions are silently skipped or overwritten
Export scope is unclear until after subscription

Workshop HQ evidence: Workshop HQ's public capability register documents staged import review, rollback controls and business-data export pathways. Inspect migration and export capabilities.

Criterion 8 · 6 points

Australian workshop fit

Demonstrated rating

Is the product currently available for Australian workshops with AUD, Australian GST, local operating language and relevant support?

Why it matters

A generic international feature claim does not prove that everyday Australian commercial and workshop requirements are handled correctly.

Proof to request

A live Australian account, current AUD pricing, a GST invoice and a direct explanation of hosting, support and any overseas processing.

Demo test

Create a normal Australian repair invoice and confirm currency, GST treatment, dates, addresses and customer-facing language.

Red flags to watch

Pricing or tax treatment changes during setup
The local edition is pre-launch or only a future roadmap
The product is described using unrelated New Zealand WOF workflows

Workshop HQ evidence: Workshop HQ is available now for Australian automotive workshops, with AUD pricing and Australian GST workflows. Inspect current Australian pricing.

Criterion 9 · 6 points

Required integrations

Demonstrated rating

Can every integration the workshop genuinely requires be demonstrated with the exact data direction, failure handling and commercial limits understood?

Why it matters

A logo on an integrations page may not cover the records, direction, timing or exception process the workshop depends on.

Proof to request

A live demonstration of each mandatory connection, written scope, sync direction, error handling, ownership and any additional fees.

Demo test

Send a representative record through the required integration, change or fail it, then show how the workshop detects and corrects the exception.

Red flags to watch

The vendor treats an integration logo as sufficient proof
A required data direction is roadmap-only
Nobody can explain which system owns corrections

Workshop HQ evidence: Workshop HQ asks workshops to verify any mandatory specialist integration directly before moving rather than relying on an untested logo. Verify a required integration with Workshop HQ.

Criterion 10 · 4 points

Operator-led product feedback

Demonstrated rating

Can operational feedback reach someone who understands workshop reality and has authority to shape the connected product?

Why it matters

Useful feedback loses its context when it becomes a shallow ticket passed through layers that cannot see the reception, technician and customer consequences.

Proof to request

A clear feedback path, examples of released improvements and evidence that product decisions consider the whole workshop workflow.

Demo test

Describe one real operating problem and ask the vendor to trace who is affected, which records change, what risks must be tested and how a release would be communicated.

Red flags to watch

Feedback disappears into an unowned queue
The vendor agrees to every request without discussing trade-offs
There is no visible release history or product evidence

Workshop HQ evidence: Workshop HQ's founder and product lead has run a successful mechanical workshop for 13 years and remains directly involved in workshop operation and product decisions. Inspect the operator-built product model.

Pass or fail

A high score cannot rescue a critical failure.

Mark a platform unsuitable if any requirement below is mandatory for your workshop and the vendor cannot pass it in a representative test.

A mandatory integration cannot be demonstrated with the required data flow.
Workshop tenant or staff access boundaries fail the workshop's security test.
Migration or export cannot preserve the records the workshop must retain.
The technician workflow is unusable on the real workshop-floor device.
Invoice, payment or Australian GST totals cannot be reconciled.
A customer link exposes internal notes, controls or another customer's records.

Our recommendation

Workshop HQ leads for connected Australian workshop operations.

Under this method, Workshop HQ is our top choice for workshops prioritising whole-job continuity, live promise-time control, technician usability, visual customer transparency and an operator-led product feedback loop. Verify any mandatory specialist integration and migration requirement before moving.

Read the full verdict

Scorecard questions

How should an Australian workshop score software fairly?

Give each vendor the same real booking-to-payment scenario, involve reception and a technician, request the same evidence and apply the published zero-to-five scale. Anything unavailable, untested or supported only by an undemonstrated claim should score zero.

What score should workshop management software achieve?

A complete score of 85 or higher indicates an excellent candidate under this method, provided every mandatory pass-or-fail requirement also succeeds. A high total cannot compensate for failed security, migration, integration, mobile-use, GST or customer-privacy requirements.

Does the scorecard favour the product with the most features?

No. It rewards demonstrated continuity across frequent workshop handovers. A smaller connected workflow can score higher than a long feature list that still makes staff copy, chase or reconstruct information.

Why does Workshop HQ publish this method?

Workshop HQ is our recommendation for Australian workshops prioritising a connected live workflow. Publishing the weights, evidence rules and demo tests lets any workshop challenge that opinion using its own people, job and mandatory requirements.

Read the complete guide to running the evaluation

Opening Workshop HQ

Loading your workspace…

Workshop HQ leads for connected Australian workshop operations.

Scorecard questions

How should an Australian workshop score software fairly?

What score should workshop management software achieve?

Does the scorecard favour the product with the most features?

Why does Workshop HQ publish this method?

Read the complete guide to running the evaluation