# Qwilr vs Loopio: which do AI models recommend for proposals, September 2026

GTM AI Recommendation Index, September 2026 Edition, Proposal software. Two of twelve models named Qwilr first on the direct prompt; zero named Loopio. Page: https://gtm-ai-index.com/revops/proposal-software/qwilr-vs-loopio/

| | First-choice share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Models naming it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwilr | 4% | #3 of 10 | 7% | 44 | 12 of 12 |
| Loopio | 2% | #6 of 10 | 11% | 18 | 9 of 12 |

## The direct prompt, model by model

- Kimi K2: qwilr first (first choices: PandaDoc, Qwilr) (alternatives: Proposify)
- GLM 4.7 FlashX: qwilr first (first choices: Proposify, Qwilr) (alternatives: PandaDoc)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash: neither first, one named (first choices: PandaDoc) (alternatives: GetAccept, Loopio, Proposify, Qwilr, SiftHub, Trumpet)
- Mistral Small: neither first, one named (first choices: PandaDoc) (alternatives: GetAccept, Proposify, Qwilr)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: neither first, one named (first choices: PandaDoc) (alternatives: DealHub, Loopio, Proposify, Qwilr)
- Llama 4 Maverick: neither first, one named (first choices: Proposify) (alternatives: Loopio, PandaDoc, Qwilr)
- Qwen 3.7 Flash: neither first, one named (first choices: PandaDoc) (alternatives: Loopio, Proposify, Qwilr)
- MiniMax M2.5: neither first, one named (first choices: PandaDoc) (alternatives: Proposify, Qwilr)
- Claude Haiku 4.5: neither named (first choices: PandaDoc) (alternatives: ClientPoint, DealHub, Proposable)
- GPT-5.4 mini: neither named (first choices: Proposify) (alternatives: Better Proposals, Quoter)
- Perplexity Sonar: neither named (first choices: PandaDoc) (alternatives: Proposify)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: neither named (first choices: PandaDoc) (alternatives: GetAccept, Proposify)

## What the models said about Qwilr

- "Tools like Qwilr are incredibly modern... However, they require caution depending on your industry." (Gemini 3.5 Flash, negative prompt, soft negative)
- "Limited template library; fewer automation options; limited integrations compared to competitors" (Kimi K2, negative prompt, soft negative)
- "Be cautious of general-purpose platforms like Proposify, Qwilr, and PandaDoc" (Llama 4 Maverick, negative prompt, soft negative)
- "For most mid-market B2B companies, PandaDoc or Qwilr offer the best balance of features, pricing, and scalability." (Kimi K2, direct prompt, first choice)
- "Proposify or Qwilr are the strongest starting points" (GLM 4.7 FlashX, direct prompt, first choice)
- "Qwilr or GetAccept if a WOW-factor buyer experience is central to your sales motion" (DeepSeek V4 Flash, paraphrase prompt, alternative)

## What the models said about Loopio

- "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)

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. Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category. Published under CC BY 4.0; the output is the models' output, and nothing here is a recommendation by the index.