Proposal software
Asked as “proposal software”, and as “sales proposal and quote document tool”, on behalf of a mid-market B2B software company. 49 first choices recorded across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, six models each.
Standing · first-choice share
65%
Clear leader
65PandaDoc10Better Proposals08DealHub16others
65% of first choices, clear leader.
Since September 2026▲+18Since September 2026: 49% → 67%, +18 points. Past the 12-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.PandaDoc held the lead, +18 points on 49%, past the floor.
The standing
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, over all six models, for a mid-market B2B software company. Ordered by share.
ProductFirst-choice shareNegative rateLabelsQuadrantSince September 2026
01
PandaDoc65%11%72endorsed leader▲+18Since September 2026: 49% → 67%, +18 points. Past the 12-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.49% → 67%
PandaDoc65%11%72endorsed leader▲+18Since September 2026: 49% → 67%, +18 points. Past the 12-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.49% → 67%02
Better Proposals10%14%35accepted challenger▲+5Since September 2026: 2% → 7%, +5 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 7%
Better Proposals10%14%35accepted challenger▲+5Since September 2026: 2% → 7%, +5 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 7%03
DealHub8%0%15accepted challenger▲+7Since September 2026: 2% → 10%, +7 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 10%
DealHub8%0%15accepted challenger▲+7Since September 2026: 2% → 10%, +7 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 10%04
Prospero6%0%14accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 4% → 5%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.4% → 5%
Prospero6%0%14accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 4% → 5%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.4% → 5%Show the five products at 0%, ordered by negative rate
06
Proposify0%15%59accepted challenger▼−13Since September 2026: 13% → 0%, −13 points. Past the 12-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.13% → 0%
Proposify0%15%59accepted challenger▼−13Since September 2026: 13% → 0%, −13 points. Past the 12-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.13% → 0%09
Loopio0%14%21accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 0%
Loopio0%14%21accepted challenger▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.2% → 0%08
GetAccept0%7%14accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%
GetAccept0%7%14accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%05
Qwilr0%6%47accepted challenger▼−4Since September 2026: 4% → 0%, −4 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.4% → 0%
Qwilr0%6%47accepted challenger▼−4Since September 2026: 4% → 0%, −4 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.4% → 0%07
Responsive0%5%19accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%
Responsive0%5%19accepted challenger=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 12-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.0% → 0%The floor is 12 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. How the floor is measured
Bars are the share of first choices, 0 to 100Every product with at least 10 labels here. Every product name links to its product page.
All six head-to-head pages: the top four products, each against each
One product takes 65% of first choices here, so the chart would put eight markers in one corner and one at the far edge. The two measurements it plots are columns in the standing above: share, and the negative label rate. Zero products carry a negative rate above 25% in this category.
What they warned about
A high negative share on a product with few labels is a warning. A low share on a product with many labels is salience, not sentiment.
Proposify15%
9 of 59 labels negative · 9 of 6 models · 2 hard negative
“**Avoid Proposify** if you need contract management or have high proposal volume” Kimi K2, negative prompt
PandaDoc11%
8 of 72 labels negative · 8 of 6 models · 1 hard negative
“**Avoid PandaDoc** if mobile experience or complex editing is critical” Kimi K2, negative prompt
Bidsketch83%
5 of 6 labels negative · 5 of 6 models · 4 hard negative
“Often called out for not keeping up with modern design expectations, lacking polish in templates and UI.” Grok 4.20, negative prompt
Better Proposals14%
5 of 35 labels negative · 5 of 6 models · 2 hard negative
“**Why to avoid:** Users frequently complain that the software is "terrible" and "complicated."” GLM 4.7 FlashX, negative prompt
What they cite
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list: fourteen of the six in this edition.
Sites the answers cite
75 of 84 answers in this category came back with a source list, from 14 of 6 models: citations where the model returns them, or the search results it consulted. 942 links across 180 sites, every framing counted. Ranked by the number of answers carrying the site or page. None of the 36 answers across every segment cited this index's own page for the category.
vendor site · PandaDoc40 answers · 64 citations · 13 models
vendor site · Qwilr39 answers · 55 citations · 12 models
33 answers · 86 citations · 12 models
vendor site · Guideflow33 answers · 34 citations · 11 models
vendor site · GetAccept30 answers · 34 citations · 13 models
vendor site · Responsive28 answers · 36 citations · 12 models
vendor site · Proposify26 answers · 39 citations · 11 models
vendor site · Zapier19 answers · 19 citations · 9 models
vendor site · Monday.com18 answers · 19 citations · 8 models
vendor site · Albato18 answers · 18 citations · 11 models
vendor site · SiftHub15 answers · 16 citations · 8 models
vendor site · SourceForge14 answers · 15 citations · 8 models
Pages the answers cite
The ten pages named in the most answers, by full address. A page here is one the models returned with a recommendation, not one the index endorses.
26 answers · 10 models
25 answers · 11 models
23 answers · 11 models
18 answers · 7 models
18 answers · 8 models
17 answers · 8 models
14 answers · 7 models
14 answers · 11 models
13 answers · 5 models
13 answers · 8 models
Search against answers
Each company's standing in the answers beside its site's footprint in Google search, one row a site: the products the models named on it with their shares, and the share they add up to; monthly searches on Google, and DataForSEO's estimate of AI search demand (modeled from search signals, directional, not a count of queries to any assistant), for the most-searched of the company's and its products' names (the name is in each row's hover text); estimated monthly organic visits to the site; and its best position in Google's top ten for “best proposal software”, “proposal software”. US estimates from DataForSEO and Google's Ads Transparency Center. A small company's site, or a mid-sized company's site for its flagship, is marked company; a product on a large parent's site (Google, Microsoft) has no site figures. A column with no figures for this category is left out, and an empty cell means none were seen, not none exist. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
| Company and products | Share | Own site cited | Name searches, Google | AI search demand, est. | Organic visits | Paid search a month, est. | Google ads, last 30 days | Best Google position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PandaDoc pandadoc.com | 65% | 527 | 60,500 | 510 | 425,196 | $42,516 | 119 | 1 |
| Better Proposals betterproposals.io | 10% | 132 | 1,300 | 65 | 24,251 | 5 | 4 | |
| DealHub dealhub.io | 8% | 175 | 1,900 | 83 | 319,299 | $372 | 62 | |
| Prospero goprospero.com | 6% | 30 | 2,400 | 1,178 | 908 | 2 | ||
| Agiled agiled.app | 4% | 17 | 49,500 | 30,683 | 6,691 | |||
| Bonsai | 2% | 74,000 | 27,918 | |||||
| Proposable | 2% | 210 | 59,009 | |||||
| Jotform jotform.com | 2% | 59 | 246,000 | 1,308 | 1,677,836 | $1,619 | 100 | |
| Qwilr qwilr.com | 0% | 167 | 4,400 | 23 | 10,837 | 27 | ||
| Proposify proposify.com | 0% | 274 | 3,600 | 28 | 38,103 | 27 | 2 |
Google's top ten for the two searches hold 15 sites; 5 of them are among the sites the models cited here (getaccept.com, pandadoc.com, proposify.com, sifthub.io, zapier.com). The first result for “best proposal software” is grantbite.com.
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.ShowHide
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.
ShowHideModelDirect“What is the best proposal software for a mid-market B2B company?”Paraphrase“Which sales proposal and quote document tool would you recommend to a mid-sized B2B company?”Comparative“What are the top proposal tools and how do they differ?”Budget-constrained“What is the best proposal software for a company with a limited budget?”Scale-constrained“We are a 500 person company evaluating a proposal software. What should we look at?”Negative“Which proposal tools should I avoid or be cautious about?”
Claude Opus 5no first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Claude Opus 4.8no first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
GPT-6 Astrano first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
GPT-5.6 Solno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Gemini 3.1 Prono first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Perplexity Sonar Prono first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Bold is the first choiceAlternatives are counted; the count opens them.What the answer argued against
The record
One row per call: the version string exactly as returned, whether the model searched, sources cited, and latency. Full answer text is in the free responses file. Download the record
Zero rows: every prompt, every model, every answer.
| Prompt | Model | Version string | Time (UTC) | Searched | Sources | Latency |
|---|
Normalization in this category
Every judgment call made between the raw labels and the numbers above, listed so it is visible and reversible.
ShowHide
Category-scoped readings
Conga read as Conga Composer
SAP read as SAP CPQ
Unresolved, counted raw
BasicDocs
DocSales
DocuShare
FreshProposals
Fynk
Google Docs/Microsoft Word
Jotform Proposals
Qume (formerly ProposalFlow)
Revver (formerly eFileCabinet)
Venngage AI Proposal Generator
Xodo Sign
Discontinued, still offered
No shut-down product was recommended here.