How to Compare Two Vendors Using Only Public Records

When you're choosing between two vendors and both look equally professional on paper, the fastest objective comparison uses only public records: state registration, domain age, licensing where applicable, and complaint history - the same categories, checked identically for both vendors, side by side. Below is the method and a template you can copy directly for your own comparison.

The Method

Pick the same five categories for both vendors and fill them in from primary sources, not from what either vendor's own marketing claims. Consistency matters more than depth here - checking one category deeply for Vendor A and skipping it for Vendor B produces a comparison that isn't actually comparable.

1. Legal entity name and registration status - Search each vendor's claimed legal name in the Secretary of State (or equivalent) database for the state where they say they're based. Note the formation date, not just "active" status.
2. Domain registration age - Use ICANN's public registration data lookup tool for each vendor's actual domain (not a marketing subdomain). Compare against each vendor's claimed years in business.
3. Licensing, if the trade requires it - Search the relevant state or local licensing board directly for each vendor's license number, not a number provided in their materials.
4. BBB profile - Note accreditation status and letter grade for each, and read the number and nature of unresolved complaints, not just the grade.
5. Complaint or litigation pattern - A general search of each vendor's legal name plus "complaint" or "lawsuit," plus a check of your state court's public case search if the amount at stake justifies the extra step.

Comparison Template

Copy this table and fill in both columns from primary sources:

Reading the Filled-In Table

A mismatch worth flagging is any row where one vendor's marketing claim and its public record diverge - a formation date years after a claimed "since" year, a domain registered recently despite a claimed long operating history, or a license number that doesn't return a match when checked directly with the board. A single mismatch isn't necessarily disqualifying on its own; a vendor might have rebranded, relocated, or restructured for legitimate reasons. Multiple mismatches on the same vendor, especially combined with an unverifiable license or a pattern of unresolved complaints, is a stronger basis for choosing the other vendor even if the mismatched one quoted a lower price.

Weight the categories by what actually matters for your decision. For a one-time small purchase, registration and BBB may be sufficient. For a larger contract or an ongoing service relationship, the licensing and litigation-pattern checks matter more, since they're the categories that predict whether a dispute later has a clear resolution path.

A Worked Example

Say you're comparing two fencing companies quoting similar prices for the same project. Vendor A's legal entity shows a registration date six years ago, a domain registered around the same time, an active state contractor license matching the name on the quote, BBB accreditation with an A rating and two resolved complaints in five years, and no litigation found. Vendor B's legal entity was registered four months ago under a name that doesn't quite match the "Established 2014" claim on its website, the domain was registered around the same recent date, the license number on the quote doesn't return a match when checked directly with the state board, and there's no BBB profile at all. Nothing about Vendor B's price or in-person pitch necessarily reveals this - the entire picture only appears once the same five checks are run against both and placed side by side. That's the value of the table: it turns a set of individually minor uncertainties into one comparison where the pattern is visible at a glance.

Doing This Faster

Filling in this table manually across five separate sources per vendor is the accurate but slow version of this method - each source (state registry, ICANN, licensing board, BBB, court search) has to be searched independently, and the vendor's exact legal name has to be confirmed before each search to avoid false negatives on a name mismatch. A ProofReports search returns most of these categories - registration, domain age, licensing where covered, and BBB - for a single business name in one summary, which is a reasonable starting point for filling in the template above before deciding whether the litigation-pattern check is worth the additional time for your specific decision.

Frequently Asked Questions

What if one vendor is a sole proprietor with no state registration?

Not every business structure requires state registration - the U.S. Small Business Administration notes that some sole proprietors aren't required to file with the state at all. In that case, focus more heavily on the domain age, BBB, and complaint-pattern rows, since registration status won't be a differentiator.

How much weight should a single negative complaint carry?

Read the specific complaint rather than treating the existence of one as disqualifying - a single resolved complaint from years ago carries far less weight than an unresolved pattern from the past year. Context and resolution matter more than the raw count.

Should price be part of this comparison?

Price belongs in a separate comparison. This method is specifically about verifying that both vendors are who and what they claim to be - a lower price from a vendor with multiple unverifiable claims isn't actually a better deal if the underlying business can't be confirmed.