Index › Revenue operations › Proposals › DealHub vs Loopio

Proposal software · September 2026 Edition

DealHub vs Loopio

Zero of twelve models named DealHub first on the direct prompt; zero named Loopio. DealHub was named by eleven of the twelve models and Loopio by nine and both carry 18 labels, so the shares below are directly comparable.

DealHub

accepted challenger

Named in six categories this edition.

Loopio

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate6%11%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#5#6A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.

Labels1818Equal, which is what makes the shares comparable.

The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, DealHub reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Proposify was named alongside these two in eleven of the twelve direct answers. PandaDoc vs DealHub · PandaDoc vs Loopio · Proposify vs DealHub

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the proposal software page.

By framing

How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.

DealHubFirst choices, of twelve modelsLoopio

Direct001 against Loopio

Paraphrase10

Comparative00

Budget-constrained00

Scale-constrained011 against DealHub

Negative001 against Loopio

Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.

Every model, every framing

The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where DealHub and Loopio stood in it.

Model	Direct	Paraphrase	Comparative	Budget-constrained	Scale-constrained	Negative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5

DealHub

Loopio

first choice

named as an alternative

argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, DealHub on the left and Loopio on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where DealHub and Loopio stood in it.

Neither was the first choice, one was named

5 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.

Claude Haiku 4.5PandaDoc alternatives: ClientPoint, DealHub, Proposable

Gemini 3.5 FlashPandaDoc alternatives: GetAccept, Loopio, Proposify, Qwilr, SiftHub, Trumpet

DeepSeek V4 FlashPandaDoc alternatives: DealHub, Loopio, Proposify, Qwilr

Llama 4 MaverickProposify alternatives: Loopio, PandaDoc, Qwilr

Qwen 3.7 FlashPandaDoc alternatives: Loopio, Proposify, Qwilr

Neither was named

7 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.

GPT-5.4 miniProposify alternatives: Better Proposals, Quoter

Perplexity SonarPandaDoc alternatives: Proposify

Grok 4.1 FastPandaDoc alternatives: GetAccept, Proposify

Mistral SmallPandaDoc alternatives: GetAccept, Proposify, Qwilr

Kimi K2PandaDoc, Qwilr alternatives: Proposify

GLM 4.7 FlashXProposify, Qwilr alternatives: PandaDoc

MiniMax M2.5PandaDoc alternatives: Proposify, Qwilr

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.

Small business

Level: the same share of first choices.

DealHub#– of 10

Loopio#10 of 10

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Level: the same share of first choices.

DealHub#5 of 10

Loopio#6 of 10

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

DealHub leads by eight points.

DealHub#3 of 10

Loopio#6 of 10

The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about DealHub

No label in this category carried a quote.

What the models said about Loopio

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.

“Choose Loopio only if RFPs are central to your sales process — it's overkill for standard proposals.” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · soft negative

“notoriously expensive ($$$) and require weeks of training and configuration” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative

“Loopio is often recommended for mid-market teams (50–300 RFPs/year), priced around $25K–$75K/year” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice

“invest in Enterprise Response Management systems like Responsive (formerly RFPIO) or Loopio” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · alternative

“If you answer security questionnaires or complex RFPs, go with SiftHub or Loopio.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · alternative

Also compared

PandaDoc vs DealHub PandaDoc vs Loopio Proposify vs DealHub Proposify vs Loopio Qwilr vs DealHub Qwilr vs Loopio Better Proposals vs DealHub Better Proposals vs Loopio DealHub vs Bonsai DealHub vs Proposable Loopio vs Bonsai Loopio vs Proposable All twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full proposals standing

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.