Your network
You renew partner firms on a feeling and a submission count.
Both are misleading. Submission volume rewards the firm that sends you the most people, which is rarely the firm that fills the roles — and a feeling is whichever placement happened most recently.
The scorecard
Twelve views, and two of them end arguments.
Funnel and drop-off per vendor, conversion at each step, median hours to first candidate, strength by role family, volume trend with direction, breadth of engagement, and a flagged list of firms sitting on work they are not working.
The two that decide renewals are deadline compliance — did they hit the submit-by date, as a percentage — and cost per hire from fees actually billed. Neither is derivable from a submission count, and neither is a number a partner firm can dispute.
- Submitted → shortlisted31%against 22% across your network
- Hit the submit-by date58%the number this meeting is about
- Hours to first candidate19median, last two quarters
- Cost per hire₹1,84,000from fees actually billed
- One vendor, one page, exportable —
Built for the meeting rather than for a dashboard nobody opens.
- Sub-vendor chains are visible —
Which of your partners delegated to whom, the agreed credit split, how often they do it, and whether their delegated work outperforms the work they keep. We have not seen anybody else publish this.
The agreement is the spine
One document, and everything downstream reads from it.
Fee or flat fee, payment terms, replacement guarantee days, the ownership window on a submitted candidate, the submission cap per role, the signatory. One active agreement at a time — activating a new one expires the old one, so there is never a question about which terms applied in March.
And the gate is real: no agreement, no submissions. The portal shows the banner and refuses.
- Assignments have a lifecycle —
Pause, reactivate, withdraw with a reason, complete — each writing an event, so who was told about which role, and when is a question with an answer.
- One invoice queue across every partner —
Approve, reject with a reason, mark paid with a reference, or void — with both sides notified, and overdue chased in both directions.
- Vendor invoices can take your approval route —
The same chain as everything else you approve, rather than a parallel process somebody maintains.
- A fee override per assignment —
Along with a cap, an experience bar, a notice-period limit, a salary band and a note only that firm sees.
Before you restructure your network on it
Including what it will not tell you.
›Is there a single score per vendor?
No. There are twelve views and no composite ranking. We would rather you argued about deadline compliance than about a weighting somebody chose.
›How do you stop two partners working the same candidate?
The first to submit owns that person on that role for the window in their own agreement. The second firm is warned before they submit and sees a name only — never contact details.
›How deep can a sub-vendor chain go?
One level, permanently. A sub-vendor cannot delegate again.
›Is there a formal consent artefact when a vendor submits?
Not yet. The vendor confirms consent at submission and it is recorded with the submission; a separate consent register on that path is not built. Worth knowing if your clients audit the chain.
›Can we pay partner firms through the platform?
No. You approve and record; payment happens where it happens today.
Book a demo
Bring your worst partner firm.
Then bring your best one. The comparison is the product.
- Open their deadline compliance against your network
- Find their cost per hire from fees actually billed
- Follow a sub-vendor chain and its credit split
- Expire their agreement and watch submissions refuse