Are these bids actually comparable?
When two contractors bid wildly different prices, it's almost always because they read your scope differently. This tool computes a fairness benchmark and flags which bids deserve a closer look — and a re-bid against a written scope.
Add at least two bids to see a benchmark.
Estimate only. Outputs are computed from publicly disclosed calibration constants and your inputs. Confirm any number with a licensed contractor or local building department before relying on it for a contract or filing.
Methodology
We compute a benchmark as the trimmed mean of the submitted bids (with 4+ bids, we drop the highest and lowest before averaging; with 2-3 bids, we use the straight mean). The trimmed mean is robust to outlier bids and is the standard methodology for bid analysis in competitive procurement.
Each bid is flagged: low-suspicion (15%+ below benchmark, often signals a scope cut or an inexperienced bidder), fair (within ±15%), high-flag (15-25% above, worth understanding why), outlier (50%+ above, almost always a different scope of work).
Spread analysis — the gap between highest and lowest bid as a percentage of benchmark — is the load-bearing diagnostic. Spread within 30% is typical when bidders see the same scope; 30-50% suggests material allowance or labor-rate variance worth itemizing; 50%+ almost always means bidders interpreted scope differently and the right answer is to re-issue a written scope and re-bid.
How this differs from Angi or Thumbtack
Angi and Thumbtack do not provide bid-comparison analysis. Their model is to send your information to multiple contractors and let you triage manually. Houzz Pro has internal bid-tracking but not homeowner-facing benchmark analysis. The structural value of this tool is treating bid comparison as an analytical exercise rather than a sales-funnel exit.
For higher-stakes projects, the bid-comparison output should inform a conversation with each contractor about line items, allowances, and scope clarifications — not a unilateral decision. The tool surfaces what's worth discussing; the discussion itself is where the actual decision is made.
Frequently asked questions
Why use a trimmed mean rather than a straight average?
Because outlier bids — frequently a contractor who read the scope differently or who is bidding from a different finish-tier expectation — would skew the straight average and produce a misleading benchmark. The trimmed mean is the standard methodology for procurement bid analysis precisely because it's robust to this case.
What does a 'low-suspicion' bid actually mean?
It means the bid is 15% or more below the benchmark. The most common cause is that the bidder read the scope as smaller than the other bidders did — often missing allowances, omitting trades, or assuming homeowner-supplied materials. The second most common cause is an inexperienced bidder undersizing the work. Either way, it's a flag for follow-up conversation.
Is the lowest bid always the best choice?
No. The lowest bid is often the bid that misread the scope. Industry research consistently shows that the lowest bid produces the highest mid-project change-order rate. The structural recommendation is to choose the bid that best matches your understanding of the scope and that comes from the contractor whose references and licensure check out — not necessarily the lowest.
What if my bid spread is over 50%?
Almost always means bidders interpreted scope differently. Re-issue a written scope to all bidders with explicit allowances, finish-tier expectations, and trade-by-trade breakouts. Re-bid against the standardized scope. The re-bid spread is typically substantially smaller and produces meaningful comparison.
Does the tool save my bids?
No. All computation is client-side; no data leaves your browser. Refreshing clears the bids. If you want to share the comparison, take a screenshot.
Want Baily to do this for you?
Skip the calculator. Tell Baily your project and city — she will do the math, cite the local source, and pre-seed your scope.