AI Indexes
GTM AI Index
Index › Sales › RFP response › Loopio vs Proposify
RFP response software · October 2026 Edition

Loopio vs Proposify

Ten of fourteen models named Loopio first on the direct prompt; zero named Proposify. Both were named by all fourteen models and Loopio carries 56 labels and Proposify 32, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Loopio

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

Proposify

criticized challenger

Named in six categories this edition.

First-choice share25%5%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate16%28%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#5A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels5632A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Loopio reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Responsive was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. Loopio vs PandaDoc · Loopio vs Responsive · Loopio vs DeepRFP

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen 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 RFP response software page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
LoopioFirst choices, of fourteen modelsProposify
Direct1001 against Proposify
Paraphrase13
Comparative701 against Proposify
Budget-constrained003 against Loopio
Scale-constrained301 against Loopio
Negative305 against Loopio · 7 against Proposify
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Loopio and Proposify were named in the same answer ninety-seven times, of the 234 answers naming Loopio and the 287 naming Proposify. In those answers Proposify took the first choice two times and Loopio twenty-one.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Loopio and Proposify stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
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
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B
Loopio Proposify first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Loopio on the left and Proposify on the right.

The direct prompt

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

Loopio first, Proposify an alternative

10 of 14 modelsProposify was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
GPT-5.4 miniLoopio alternatives: Responsive
Perplexity SonarLoopio alternatives: Responsive
Mistral SmallLoopio, Responsive alternatives: Expedience Proposal Software, Proposify
DeepSeek V4 FlashLoopio alternatives: AutoRFP.ai, Proposify, QorusDocs, Responsive
Qwen 3.7 FlashAutoRFP.ai, Loopio alternatives: Qwilr, Upland Qvidian
Kimi K2Loopio alternatives: AutoRFP.ai, PandaDoc, Responsive
GLM 4.7 FlashXLoopio alternatives: Responsive, Upland Qvidian
MiniMax M2.5Loopio, Responsive alternatives: SiftHub, Upland Qvidian
GPT-6 LunaLoopio alternatives: Responsive
Muse Glimmer 30BLoopio alternatives: AutoRFP.ai, Responsive

Neither was the first choice, one was named

3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5Tribble alternatives: AutoRFP.ai, Loopio, Steerlab
Gemini 3.5 FlashTribble alternatives: AutoRFP.ai, Loopio, Steerlab
Grok 4.1 FastResponsive alternatives: Loopio

Neither was named

1 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Llama 4 MaverickExpedience Proposal Software alternatives: AutoRFP.ai, Conveyor

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.
Loopio4%#6 of 14
Proposify4%#5 of 14
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Loopio leads by nineteen points.
Loopio25%#1 of 10
Proposify5%#5 of 10
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Loopio leads by thirteen points.
Loopio13%#2 of 8
Proposify0%#8 of 8
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Loopio

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

“Loopio specifically called out as "not AI-native"—built in 2014 with AI added around 2021” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · hard negative
“The answers Magic populates are surface-level at best, and the feature fails to generate responses for complex RFP requirements and often needs a lot of manual editing.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Full-blown enterprise RFP suites (like Loopio or Responsive) typically start at $10,000–$20,000+ per year, which is out of reach” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“Best for structured proposal teams with dedicated content managers who need a strong content library, easier content reuse, and reliable customer support.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
“Widely regarded as the most intuitive interface with the lowest learning curve. Teams can often be onboarded in days rather than months.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“mainstream platforms (like Responsive/RFPIO, Loopio, or AI-first startups like 1up.ai or Tribble) are ideal” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · first choice

What the models said about Proposify

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

“General proposal tools like Proposify and PandaDoc: These excel at sales proposals but fall short for true RFPs.” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · hard negative
“Proposify and PandaDoc - They are proposal tools rather than RFP tools, and the difference matters.” Llama 4 Maverick · negative prompt · hard negative
“Proposify and PandaDoc are frequently cited as problematic choices for RFP response work” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · hard negative
“I'd generally recommend Proposify as the default choice.” GPT-5.4 mini · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend Proposify as the default choice” Perplexity Sonar · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Start with Proposify for sales proposals” GPT-6 Luna · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared

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.