Fleet Scoring Framework
ElectronsX uses a consistent scoring framework to compare EV and AV platforms for real-world fleet deployments. Instead of a single vague rating, each model is evaluated across four distinct dimensions for fleet suitability:
- Fleet Utility Score (FUS)
- Total Cost of Ownership Score (TCO)
- Charging and Depot Readiness Score (CDR)
- Driver Assistance and Experience Score (DAX)
Each score is normalized on a 0–100 scale within its segment and then combined into a composite Fleet Pro score for quick comparison. This page explains what each score means, which inputs drive it, and how the composite is derived.
Fleet Utility Score (FUS)
Definition
Fleet Utility Score (FUS) measures how well a vehicle serves its intended fleet job. It reflects functional capability, flexibility, and uptime, not brand or luxury.
Key questions
- Can this vehicle perform the work my routes require?
- How adaptable is it across duty cycles, seasons, and upfits?
- Does it support the cargo, towing, and passenger patterns my fleet runs?
Primary inputs (examples)
- Usable range at fleet duty, adjusted from EPA or WLTP to realistic patterns
- Payload, gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), and gross combined weight rating (GCWR)
- Cargo volume or usable deck area
- Towing capability where relevant
- Duty cycle fit for urban, mixed, or highway routes
- Upfit ecosystem and body variants such as cargo, flatbed, box, utility, or shuttle
- Operating temperature band and cold-weather robustness
- Serviceability factors that affect operational uptime
Scoring approach
- Normalize key metrics within segment, such as compact vans, heavy-duty trucks, shuttles, or buses.
- Apply penalties for hard constraints, for example range cliffs at realistic loads or very limited body options.
- Convert to a 0–100 score where 50 represents a typical segment performer and 80 or above indicates best-in-class utility for the intended use case.
Total Cost of Ownership Score (TCO)
Definition
Total Cost of Ownership Score (TCO) captures lifecycle cost advantage or disadvantage versus a conventional baseline for a given use case.
Key questions
- Is this platform economically defensible for my fleet over its life?
- How sensitive is the economics to energy costs and utilization?
- Does this vehicle want long utilization hours, or will it work for lighter duty as well?
Primary inputs (examples)
- Net acquisition cost, including MSRP and typical fleet incentives
- Estimated residual value and depreciation curve
- Maintenance and repair expectations versus an internal combustion engine baseline
- Energy cost per mile or per operating hour, based on depot and corridor charging mixes
- Required infrastructure spend per vehicle for chargers, depot upgrades, grid upgrades, and microgrid share
- Utilization assumptions in miles per year or hours per year
- Typical holding period for fleet operators
Scoring approach
- Model levelized cost per mile or operating hour under standard fleet scenarios.
- Compare to a benchmark internal combustion or incumbent platform in the same segment.
- Express as a 0–100 score where 50 is approximately neutral versus the baseline, scores above 70 indicate strong TCO advantage, and scores below 40 indicate poor economics.
Charging and Depot Readiness Score (CDR)
Definition
Charging and Depot Readiness Score (CDR) measures how easily and efficiently a vehicle fits into fleet charging and depot operations, both today and as depots evolve toward megawatt-class and energy-autonomous sites.
Key questions
- Will this platform integrate cleanly with my current and planned depots?
- How much time do I lose to charging versus my duty cycles?
- Is this vehicle aligned with where fleet charging standards are going?
Primary inputs (examples)
- Battery usable capacity
- Depot AC charging capability at realistic voltages and power levels
- DC fast charging performance, including peak power, 20–80 percent time, and curve shape
- Voltage platform, such as 400 volt or 800 volt architectures and megawatt charging system readiness for heavy-duty segments
- Connector types supported, including NACS, CCS, MCS, and regional standards
- Thermal management quality and preconditioning behavior
- Vehicle-to-everything capabilities where relevant, such as vehicle-to-load, vehicle-to-home, or vehicle-to-grid
- Fit to common depot charging patterns such as overnight, shift-based, or fast-turn opportunity charging
Scoring approach
- Normalize effective charge time per added mile or kilometer of range for typical fleet charge windows.
- Add modifiers for voltage platform fit, connector ecosystem alignment, and depot compatibility.
- Express as a 0–100 score where 50 represents a workable but unremarkable fit and 80 or higher represents a depot-friendly, future-aligned platform.
Driver Assistance and Experience Score (DAX)
Definition
Driver Assistance and Experience Score (DAX) measures how far a platform goes beyond basic driving to support safety, comfort, and software-defined operations. It blends driver assistance capability, software maturity, ergonomics, and integration with fleet systems.
Key questions
- Will my drivers be safer and less fatigued in this platform?
- Is the software stack helping or hurting fleet productivity?
- Does this vehicle integrate well with my fleet management and autonomy roadmap?
Primary inputs (examples)
- Depth and quality of driver assistance and autonomy packages, including adaptive cruise, lane keeping, automatic emergency braking, blind spot monitoring, and automated parking
- Quality of implementation, not just feature count
- Over-the-air update cadence and history
- Native telematics capabilities and application programming interface access for fleet integration
- Cabin ergonomics for long duty cycles, including seating, ingress and egress, visibility, and noise levels
- Human–machine interface load, such as clarity versus clutter of displays and controls
- Safety ratings where available
Scoring approach
- Blend qualitative and quantitative inputs into a weighted 0–100 score.
- Set 50 as a baseline for basic modern driver assistance and an acceptable driver environment.
- Assign scores above 75 to platforms with advanced driver support, strong over-the-air track records, and good fleet integration stories.
Composite Fleet Score
Definition
The composite fleet total composite score is a weighted combination of the four core scores, designed for quick ranking and shortlist decisions rather than to replace a detailed evaluation.
Baseline weights
- Fleet Utility Score (FUS): 0.35
- Total Cost of Ownership Score (TCO): 0.30
- Charging and Depot Readiness Score (CDR): 0.20
- Driver Assistance and Experience Score (DAX): 0.15
Formula
Fleet Composite Score = 0.35 × FUS + 0.30 × TCO + 0.20 × CDR + 0.15 × DAX
All scores are on a 0–100 scale. Segment-specific variants can be introduced over time, such as slightly higher weights on Fleet Utility and Charging and Depot Readiness for long-haul applications or higher weight on Driver Assistance and Experience for passenger-focused shuttle services.
Data Sources and Methodology
Fleet scores are based on verifiable, multi-source data. Each score blends public specifications, fleet-relevant adjustments, and real-world performance patterns. When data is missing, the score reflects that uncertainty rather than inventing values.
Primary data sources
Manufacturer specifications
- Battery usable capacity and voltage platform
- Peak and sustained charging rates
- Payload, towing, GVWR, and GCWR
- Connector types, driver assistance packages, and over-the-air support
- Maintenance intervals and warranties
Regulatory and certification data
- EPA range ratings
- WLTP or CLTC figures where EPA data is not available
- Safety ratings from agencies such as NHTSA and IIHS
Publushed independent instrumented testing
- Charging curves and 20–80 percent charge times
- Real-world energy consumption
- Performance at load and in cold-weather conditions
Published fleet duty-cycle models
- Stop–start last-mile delivery routes
- Mixed suburban delivery patterns
- Depot-based shift cycles
- Regional trucking with predictable state-of-charge windows
- Idle and auxiliary loads such as HVAC
- Dock-to-dock patterns and typical dwell windows
These models are used to convert lab or rating-cycle data into fleet-realistic range, energy use, and charge times that drive FUS and CDR.
Telematics ecosystem data
- Average fleet utilization hours
- Typical daily mileage per sector
- Energy cost ranges for depot versus corridor charging
- Typical maintenance cost differences between EV and ICE platforms
Charging ecosystem specifications
- Industry documents for megawatt charging systems
- OEM documentation for connector standards such as NACS and CCS
- Charger manufacturer performance data
Handling missing or uncertain data
- Unknown or unpublished values are not invented.
- Conservative baselines are used where needed.
- Scores reflect uncertainty when key data is unavailable.
- Model profiles clearly indicate where data is estimated or missing.
Why Our Scoring is Different
Most rating systems rely solely on manufacturer specifications or consumer-oriented tests. ElectronsX evaluates electric vehicles as fleet assets, not consumer products. That means the scoring emphasizes:
- Duty-cycle corrections for realistic fleet operations
- Depot and charging compatibility
- Lifecycle economics rather than sticker price
- Operational uptime and serviceability
- Integration readiness for telematics, autonomy, and over-the-air updates
This framework is meant to be transparent and auditable, while still giving fleet operators a fast way to compare platforms at a glance.