Interview scorecard template

Sales Development Representative (SDR) interview scorecard

Evaluate Sales Development Representative (SDR) candidates across 4 weighted areas: track record, method and qualification, relationships and trust, and drive and resilience. Track record leads at 35%, so check quota history in real numbers: meetings booked per month, SQL acceptance rate by AEs, pipeline dollars sourced, and how they ranked against team. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
sales business developmentcold callingcrm hygieneoutbound prospectingsales cadence
TL;DR
For track record, look for evidence the candidate quotes monthly meeting targets, attainment percentages, and accepted opportunity counts, and names the AEs and segments those numbers came from. For method and qualification, look for evidence the candidate walks through a live multitouch cadence, explains why a lead was disqualified, and shows discipline about what an AE will actually accept. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Track record

35% weight

Check quota history in real numbers: meetings booked per month, SQL acceptance rate by AEs, pipeline dollars sourced, and how they ranked against team quota in Salesforce or HubSpot dashboards.

Evidence to listen for

  • Gives numbers: quota, attainment, deal size, client roster
  • Explains the market and buyer they sold to, not just the product
  • Distinguishes what they closed from what the team closed
  • Can describe a deal they lost and why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No numbers; cannot describe what they actually sold or to whom.

2
Needs Improvement

Vague attainment; credit for team results is unclear.

3
Satisfactory

Real record with some numbers; attribution occasionally fuzzy.

4
Very Good

Clear numbers and ownership, including honest losses.

5
Excellent

Quotes monthly meeting targets, attainment percentages, and accepted opportunity counts, and names the AEs and segments those numbers came from.

02
Evaluation factor

Method and qualification

25% weight

Probe their prospecting method: list building in ZoomInfo or Apollo, sequence design in Outreach or Salesloft, cold call opener structure, and how they qualify with BANT or MEDDIC before handoff.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has a repeatable approach to qualifying and progressing deals
  • Can walk a real deal from first contact to close
  • Handles objections with questions rather than scripts
  • Knows when to disqualify

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No method; pitches at everyone and hopes.

2
Needs Improvement

Weak qualification; deals stall with no diagnosis.

3
Satisfactory

Workable method; inconsistent on complex or long cycles.

4
Very Good

Clear repeatable method; disqualifies early and deliberately.

5
Excellent

Walks through a live multitouch cadence, explains why a lead was disqualified, and shows discipline about what an AE will actually accept.

03
Evaluation factor

Relationships and trust

25% weight

Assess how they handle gatekeepers, multithread into buying committees, and keep cold prospects warm; ask for a nurture that converted months after the first no.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has clients or talent who came back or referred them
  • Manages a difficult conversation without damaging the relationship
  • Represents the client's interest, not only the commission
  • Builds rapport across seniority levels

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Transactional; burns relationships for a close.

2
Needs Improvement

Builds rapport but does not sustain relationships.

3
Satisfactory

Solid relationships; less tested in conflict.

4
Very Good

Repeat business and referrals; handles conflict without damage.

5
Excellent

Describes specific accounts revived through persistent, personalised follow up and shows AEs trusted the quality of their handoffs.

04
Evaluation factor

Drive and resilience

15% weight

Test tolerance for daily rejection: dials or emails per day, how they recover after a rough block, and what coaching or call reviews changed their conversion rate.

Evidence to listen for

  • Handles rejection and a bad quarter without unravelling
  • Self-directed on pipeline rather than waiting for leads
  • Coachable on feedback
  • Honest in how they represent the product and themselves

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Gives up easily; blames leads, product, or market.

2
Needs Improvement

Motivation depends on momentum; resistant to coaching.

3
Satisfactory

Steady; recovers from setbacks with support.

4
Very Good

Self-motivated, coachable, and steady through bad stretches.

5
Excellent

Cites sustained daily activity volumes, names a specific coaching correction they applied, and shows measurable lift after it.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Sales Development Representative (SDR)

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Tell me about your past sales experience, including the target you carried and what you hit.

  2. 02

    Can you describe your process for reaching sales targets?

  3. 03

    What motivates you to exceed your sales goals?

  4. 04

    What strategies do you use for researching potential leads?

  5. 05

    How do you prioritise your leads?

See the complete Sales Development Representative (SDR) question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards