A multiplant Quality Improvement Team (QIT) was formed to develop and implement an evaluation program for various color measurement systems as potential replacements for the then-current aging systems. The emphasis of this article is the analytical methodology utilized to evaluate the various color systems. The evaluation program consisted of two phases. Phase I was a general overview/review of several systems, while Phase II was an extensive internal comparative evaluation of four measurement systems. These were Milton-Roy＇s ColorMate HDS, HunterLab＇s UltraScan, Datacolor＇s CS-5, and BYK-Gardner＇s The Color Sphere (TCS). The main comparison criteria were interinstrument agreement (agreement between two instruments of the same system), user-Friendly software and computer interface capability, vendor amenability to a long-term logistical and maintenance relationship, and price. All systems were evaluated by duplicate measurements on various color tiles, yarns, and polymer flakes - over 1600 measurements on each system. The systems were compared with an instrument matrix, a decision matrix, and a product matrix. The instrument matrix was a comparison of instrument parameters, software/math treatments, and economics. The decision matrix was a forced ranking of each system by each criteria category (1-4 scale, with 1 representing the best and 4 representing the worst). The product matrix accentuated the relative importance of one criterion category over another by multiplying the forced ranking by the criticality of the category. The criticality of a given category was determined by consensus within the QIT. The combination of the three matrices allowed the evaluator(s) to select the color measurement system that best satisfied the color measurement needs and requirements of their facility and their products. For this evaluation, all of the evaluated systems were superior to the then-current aging systems. As a result of this methodology, one instrument emerged as clearly superior.