Put Promethean, MAXHUB and Samsung through the same ministry tender and any of the three can win. The panels do not decide it. The weighting on the evaluation sheet does — and the weighting is set before a single bid is opened. That is the uncomfortable finding behind this comparison, and the reason it is worth running the exercise before the tender is published rather than after.
This guide scores the three brands against one illustrative education tender of the kind ministries and school groups issue across the GCC and Africa, then changes the weights to show how the ranking moves. The scores are illustrative judgements to demonstrate the method, not test results — replace them with your own evaluation of the specific models bid, on the specific dates you evaluate them.
The quick reference
- Promethean scores highest where lesson software, teacher adoption and an education installed base are weighted.
- MAXHUB scores highest where cost per classroom and value for money carry the weight.
- Samsung scores highest where panel quality, finish and manufacturer standing are weighted, and in mixed estates that include boardrooms.
- All three normally pass the mandatory technical gate; the evaluation is decided in the weighted section.
- The decisive variable is the split between price, software and support — set it deliberately, because it will choose the brand for you.
The tender we are scoring
A ministry or school group buying several hundred 75 and 86 inch interactive flat panels for secondary classrooms across more than one country, installed and commissioned, with teacher training and a multi-year warranty. Two-envelope evaluation: a mandatory technical gate, then a weighted technical score, then the commercial opening. It is the most common shape of education display tender in the region, and the one our technical evaluation sheet is built for.
Stage one: the mandatory gate
Pass or fail, and all three brands normally pass it on their current education lines: 4K panel, multi-point touch, pen and finger writing, an embedded Android system, the required inputs, an OPS slot, and the manufacturer's warranty. If a bidder fails here it is usually for a reason that has nothing to do with the brand — missing conformity documents for the destination country, a model not sold in that market, or an expired authorisation letter.
That is worth saying because it is where tenders are actually lost. A compliant bid file with the right manufacturer authorisation matters more at this stage than any feature comparison.
Stage two: the weighted score
Five criteria, scored one to five. Below is the illustrative scoring we use to demonstrate the method.
| Criterion | Promethean | MAXHUB | Samsung |
|---|---|---|---|
| Panel and hardware quality | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| Lesson software and teacher adoption | 5 | 3 | 3 |
| Fleet and device management | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Service reach and spares in-country | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Cost per classroom (higher = cheaper) | 2 | 5 | 2 |
Illustrative scores to demonstrate the weighting method. Service reach in particular varies by country and by partner; score it from the bidders' evidence for your destinations, not from the brand.
Three weightings, three winners
Weighting A: education-led
Software and adoption 35%, hardware 20%, management 15%, service 15%, cost 15%. Promethean wins (Promethean 4.05, MAXHUB 3.65, Samsung 3.55). This is the weighting a ministry uses when it has decided that teacher use is the outcome being bought — which is defensible, because a panel that teachers do not use delivers nothing whatever it cost.
Weighting B: value-led
Cost 40%, hardware 20%, software 15%, management 10%, service 15%. MAXHUB wins (MAXHUB 4.15, Promethean 3.35, Samsung 3.25). This is the weighting a budget-constrained rollout uses, and it is equally defensible: thirty rooms with a good panel can do more than twenty rooms with a premium one.
Weighting C: quality-led
Hardware 35%, management 20%, service 20%, software 15%, cost 10%. Samsung edges it (Samsung 4.00, Promethean 3.95, MAXHUB 3.75). A margin that narrow means one point on any criterion would reverse it — which is itself a finding: under a quality-led weighting, the evaluation of the actual units bid matters more than the brand. This is the weighting a flagship institution or a mixed estate of classrooms and boardrooms tends to use.
Same panels, same scores, three different winners. The evaluation committee picked the brand when it picked the weights.
What each brand is really selling
Promethean: the adoption argument
Promethean's case rests on ActivInspire, a large community of teachers already trained on it, and education-specific fleet tooling. For a ministry whose real risk is panels going unused, that is the strongest argument any of the three brands can make. It only holds if training is funded alongside the hardware. We cover the lineup and licensing in Promethean for ministry-scale rollouts.
MAXHUB: the arithmetic argument
MAXHUB's case is that specification and build sit close to the premium brands at a price that fits more rooms into the same budget. On a programme of several hundred classrooms the difference compounds into whole schools. The trade is a thinner education software ecosystem. See our MAXHUB sourcing guide.
Samsung: the quality and estate argument
Samsung's case is panel quality, finish, and one manufacturer across classroom panels, boardroom displays and signage. It is strongest where the buyer is fitting more than classrooms. In a pure classroom tender scored on cost per room it is the hardest of the three to justify. See the Samsung interactive display lineup.
How to set the weights honestly
- Decide the outcome before the brands. Is the programme buying screens in rooms, or teaching that uses them? The answer sets the software weight.
- Price training in, or weight software down. Weighting lesson software heavily while funding no training pays for a capability nobody will use. Our teacher adoption playbook sets out what training actually costs.
- Score service by country, not by brand. The same brand can have excellent support in one capital and none in the next. Ask for named partners and spares holdings per destination.
- Use whole-life cost, not unit price. Warranty length, spares and support over five years change the cost criterion materially — see total cost of ownership.
- Evaluate real units. A demonstration panel in your own classroom settles arguments a datasheet cannot. See demo and evaluation units.
Frequently asked questions
Which is best for a ministry tender: Promethean, MAXHUB or Samsung?
Whichever the evaluation weighting favours. Promethean wins when lesson software and teacher adoption are weighted heavily, MAXHUB when cost per classroom carries the weight, and Samsung when panel quality and a mixed estate matter most. All three normally pass the mandatory technical gate.
Do all three pass a typical technical compliance gate?
On their current education lines, normally yes. Bids more often fail the gate on documentation — missing conformity certificates for the destination country, a model not sold in that market, or an expired manufacturer authorisation.
Is it fair to weight lesson software heavily?
Yes, if the programme funds teacher training. Without training, panels tend to be used as large screens, and a heavy software weight then pays for a capability nobody uses.
How should service be scored across several countries?
Per destination, from the bidder's evidence: named service partners, spares held in-country, and response commitments. Support from the same brand can vary sharply between countries.
Should the cost criterion use unit price?
Use whole-life cost over the warranty period instead. Warranty length, spares and support change the comparison materially over five years.
Bidding all three
Smart-Boards supplies Promethean, MAXHUB and Samsung across the GCC and Africa on a quote basis, with per-country conformity, delivery and installation. Browse Promethean panels, MAXHUB panels and Samsung panels, or the full interactive flat panel range — or send us the tender documents and we will price compliant options in all three brands so the committee can compare them on the same basis.