Good, Better, Best: QBR Recommendations That Get Funded

Most MSP recommendations die the same way. The vCIO presents a single proposal at the QBR - replace the firewall, $14,000 - and the client says they will think about it. Three months later it is on the agenda again. Nothing has changed except that the risk is now three months older.

The problem is not the recommendation. It is the shape of the question. A single proposal asks the client "yes or no?", and "not yet" is the easiest answer to a yes-or-no question. Good, Better, Best changes the question to "which one?" - and that single shift is why it has become the default way strong MSPs present recommendations in their Technology Business Reviews (TBRs), the meeting most of the industry calls a QBR.

But Good, Better, Best only works when it is built on something. Presented without a scored finding behind it, it is just a menu. Built on one, it is the most reliable way we know to turn documented risk into funded project revenue.

Why Yes-or-No Proposals Stall

One option gives the client only one decision: whether

A single proposal forces the client to evaluate two things at once: whether the problem is real, and whether your price is right. If they have doubts about either, the safe move is to defer. And because nothing visibly breaks when they defer, deferring feels free.

It is not free, and that is the MSP's problem to make visible. Every deferred recommendation is an open risk that the client is carrying without having consciously chosen to carry it - and an unsold project sitting in your pipeline. Across a client base, those deferrals are the difference between an account that generates steady project revenue and one that only ever pays the monthly agreement. Our project attach rate benchmark covers how to measure that gap.

Why Good, Better, Best Works

It moves the conversation from whether to which

When a client sees three credible ways to solve a problem they already accept is real, the decision in front of them is no longer "should we do something?" It is "how far do we want to go?" That is a much easier decision to make in the room.

Three options also do something a single price cannot: they give the client context. The Best option makes the Better option look reasonable. The Good option shows that there is an affordable way to act. Many clients choose the middle, which is why the middle option should be the one you would actually recommend.

Finally, options transfer ownership. A client who picked Better chose it. That makes the project theirs, not something the MSP sold them - which matters when the invoice arrives and when the next renewal comes up.

The Rule Most MSPs Miss: Every Option Must Close the Finding

Good is not a discount - it is the minimum that fixes the problem

The most common way Good, Better, Best goes wrong is a Good option that does not actually resolve the issue. It is priced to look cheap, the client picks it, and the risk is still there at the next review. That is not advice. It is a decoy, and clients eventually notice.

In the vCIO Framework, every recommendation starts from a finding scored against your Standards Library - Red for immediate action or liability, Yellow for needs attention, Green for solid and systemized. The three options are then defined by where they leave that finding:

Option	What it must do	Resulting status
Good	Resolve the finding to your standard - the minimum acceptable fix	Green today
Better	Resolve it and reduce the chance it comes back (monitoring, redundancy, process)	Green, and stays Green
Best	Resolve it and move the client toward their roadmap's future state	Green, and advances the roadmap

If an option would leave the finding Red or Yellow, it does not belong on the list. That single rule keeps Good, Better, Best honest - and it is what makes the options credible enough to buy.

The Fourth Option: Signed Risk Acceptance

Good, Better, Best - or sign

Clients are allowed to say no. What they should not be allowed to do is say nothing. The framework's rule is that every documented gap ends in one of two places: a funded remediation project, or a signed risk acceptance.

So the real choice you present is four options, not three: Good, Better, Best, or accept the risk in writing. Many clients who see the fourth option written down - a one-page acknowledgment that they understand the exposure and are choosing not to address it - pick one of the first three. The ones who sign have made an informed business decision, and your liability position is documented if the risk ever materializes. Either outcome is better than "we will think about it."

Building the Three Options, Step by Step

Start from the finding, not the product

1. Score the finding. Name the gap against your standard and its status. "Firewall is end-of-support in Q3; no security updates after that date. Scored Red."

2. State the business impact. In the client's terms, not yours. "Unpatched perimeter devices are a common entry point for ransomware, and your cyber insurance renewal will ask about it."

3. Define Good first. What is the least you could do that genuinely turns this Green? Price it honestly.

4. Build Better from Good. Add the thing that keeps it Green: managed monitoring, a redundant unit, a lifecycle replacement plan. This is usually your recommendation.

5. Build Best from the roadmap. Look at where the client is going in the next two to three years. Best should move them there, not just add more hardware.

6. Place each option on the roadmap. Show when each would be done and what it does to the budget in each quarter. Clients approve plans more easily than purchases.

A Worked Example

Here is how the firewall finding above might look when presented. Prices are illustrative - use your own.

	Good	Better (recommended)	Best
Scope	Like-for-like firewall replacement, configured to standard	Replacement plus managed threat monitoring and a 5-year lifecycle plan	Replacement as part of a move to secure remote access for the whole team, per the roadmap
Project	$6,500	$8,500	$19,000
Monthly	No change	+$250/month	+$600/month
Finding after	Green	Green, monitored	Green, and closes two roadmap items
Timing	This quarter	This quarter	Phased over two quarters

Notice what every column has in common: the finding goes Green. The client is not choosing whether to fix the firewall. They are choosing how much resilience they want to buy with the fix. And notice what Better does to the account: a project plus new recurring revenue. That is how Good, Better, Best grows MRR, not just project income.

Presenting Good, Better, Best in the Review

Lead with the risk, recommend the middle, record the decision

In the TBR, recommendations belong after the account health score and the risk review, never before. The client should already have seen the Red finding and agreed it matters before they see a price. Our guide to running a QBR (TBR) that generates revenue covers where this sits in the agenda.

Then keep the presentation simple. One slide per finding. The finding and its impact at the top, the three options side by side, your recommendation marked. Say which one you would choose and why, then stop talking and let the client decide.

Record the decision before the meeting ends: the option chosen and a target date, or a signed risk acceptance. Anything larger than the client's operating budget - usually the Best options - belongs in the Executive Business Review, where the people who own the capital budget are in the room.

Match the Depth to the Client Tier

Not every client needs three fully scoped options on every finding. Tier A (Always Engaged) and Tier B (Betterment Focused) accounts should get full Good, Better, Best on every Red and Yellow finding - they have the most active roadmaps and the most project potential. Tier C (Core Consistent) accounts can often be served with Good and Better only. For Tier D (Sustain) accounts, a single Good option and a risk acceptance form is usually enough.

Common Mistakes

A Good option that does not fix the finding. It sells once and costs you credibility at the next review.

A gold-plated Best. Best should be tied to the client's roadmap, not padded to make Better look cheap. Clients can tell the difference.

Options without a finding. If the client has not seen and agreed to the risk, three prices are just three reasons to say no.

No way to decline. Without a signed risk acceptance as the alternative, "we will think about it" becomes the fourth option by default.

Too many line items. Each option should be understandable in one sentence. Detailed scope belongs in the proposal that follows the meeting, not on the slide.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Good, Better, Best pricing for MSPs?

It is a way of presenting a recommendation as three priced options instead of one. For MSPs, the most effective version ties all three options to the same documented finding, so each one resolves the risk and the client chooses how far beyond the minimum fix to go.

Which option should an MSP recommend?

Usually Better. Build it as the option you would choose if it were your own business, and make it the one that keeps the finding from coming back. When all three are credible, many clients choose the middle option.

What if the client does not pick any option?

Offer the fourth option: a signed risk acceptance. It records that the client understands the exposure and has chosen not to address it for now. Many clients choose an option instead once they see the acceptance form, and those who sign have made an informed decision that protects both sides.

Do I need QBR software to use Good, Better, Best?

No. Some platforms, such as vCIO Hero, build Good/Better/Best into their recommendation tools, and they can make presenting it faster. But the method works in any proposal tool or slide deck. What makes it work is the scored finding behind the options, not the software. Our vCIO and QBR software comparison covers the main platforms.

Want to see how your current reviews score? Take the free vCIO assessment, or download the vCIO Framework v1.15 to get the Standards Library, tiering model and TBR agenda this method is built on.