Proposal software · September 2026 Edition
Proposify vs DealHub
Three of twelve models named Proposify first on the direct prompt; zero named DealHub. Proposify was named by twelve of the twelve models and DealHub by eleven and Proposify carries 54 labels and DealHub 18, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Named in six categories this edition.
First-choice share13%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate17%6%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#5A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels5418A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Proposify reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.PandaDoc was named alongside these two in eleven of the twelve direct answers. PandaDoc vs Proposify · PandaDoc vs DealHub · Proposify vs Qwilr
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.
ProposifyFirst choices, of twelve modelsDealHub
Direct30
Paraphrase21
Comparative00
Budget-constrained102 against Proposify
Scale-constrained001 against Proposify · 1 against DealHub
Negative006 against Proposify
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 Proposify and DealHub 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 | | | |
Proposify DealHub first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Proposify on the left and DealHub on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Proposify and DealHub stood in it.
Proposify first, DealHub not the choice
3 of 12 modelsDealHub was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniProposify alternatives: Better Proposals, Quoter
Llama 4 MaverickProposify alternatives: Loopio, PandaDoc, Qwilr
GLM 4.7 FlashXProposify, Qwilr alternatives: PandaDoc
Neither was the first choice, one was named
9 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
Perplexity SonarPandaDoc alternatives: Proposify
Grok 4.1 FastPandaDoc alternatives: GetAccept, Proposify
Mistral SmallPandaDoc alternatives: GetAccept, Proposify, Qwilr
DeepSeek V4 FlashPandaDoc alternatives: DealHub, Loopio, Proposify, Qwilr
Qwen 3.7 FlashPandaDoc alternatives: Loopio, Proposify, Qwilr
Kimi K2PandaDoc, Qwilr alternatives: Proposify
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
Proposify leads by nine points.
Proposify9%#3 of 10DealHub0%#– of 10Mid-marketThe figures above
Proposify leads by eleven points.
Proposify13%#2 of 10DealHub2%#5 of 10Enterprise
The order flips: DealHub leads at enterprise.
DealHub11%#3 of 10Proposify2%#7 of 10What the models said about Proposify
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“Proposify — Multiple Critical Issues ... Proposify and SAP Ariba have the most severe and well-documented problems.” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · hard negative
“Frequent reports of poor customer service ... Trustpilot rating ~2.3/5; some call it "buggy and unusable."” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · hard negative
“Predatory billing practices - Charging after cancellation, making refunds nearly impossible” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“my default pick would be Proposify if you want a balanced mix of proposal creation, approvals, tracking, and CRM-friendly workflow” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · first choice
“For most mid-market B2B companies, Proposify or Qwilr are the strongest starting points” GLM 4.7 FlashX · direct prompt · first choice
“the best sales proposal and quote document tool for a mid-sized B2B company would be Proposify” Llama 4 Maverick · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about DealHub
No label in this category carried a quote.
Also compared
PandaDoc vs ProposifyPandaDoc vs DealHubProposify vs QwilrProposify vs Better ProposalsProposify vs LoopioProposify vs BonsaiProposify vs ProposableQwilr vs DealHubBetter Proposals vs DealHubDealHub vs LoopioDealHub vs BonsaiDealHub vs ProposableAll 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.