How to evaluate this requirement
Average invoice cost mixes different freight, lanes and delivery needs. It can rise even while comparable prices improve. A useful TMS evaluation therefore asks how the reporting separates the changing profile from a change in price. A graph of total spend alone cannot answer that question.
Test four profile dimensions
Begin with packaged dimensions and density, then class, weight and distance or lane mix. Ask what data the system needs, how corrected shipment facts are handled and which comparisons remain valid when the underlying mix changes. Request one controlled example for each dimension before moving to a combined example.
Reconcile the charge components
Inspect linehaul, fuel and accessorials separately. Look at accessorial frequency as well as cost per occurrence. A heavier shipment may change linehaul, which may also change a percentage-based fuel charge. The explanation must account for these relationships without adding the same economic effect twice.
The current MyMGN LTL cost-analysis page describes customer-specific dimensions, class, weight and distance analysis with separate linehaul, fuel and accessorial views. That is a meaningful capability to demonstrate. Public documentation does not replace a review of the actual calculation method, interaction effects and data quality.
Make finance and operations part of acceptance
Ask for the included shipment population, comparison periods, exclusions and missing-data rules. Finance should be able to reconcile the result to spend; operations should recognize the freight changes behind it. A useful output identifies a decision to investigate, such as packaging, routing or service requirements, while clearly showing what the data does and does not establish.