RFP response software · October 2026 Edition
Loopio vs Responsive
Ten of fourteen models named Loopio first on the direct prompt; three named Responsive. Both were named by all fourteen models and Loopio carries 56 labels and Responsive 46, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
founded 2015. Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share25%14%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate16%20%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#3A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels5646A 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.Loopio vs PandaDoc · Loopio vs DeepRFP · Loopio vs Proposify
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 modelsResponsive
Direct1031 against Responsive
Paraphrase11
Comparative76
Budget-constrained003 against Loopio · 3 against Responsive
Scale-constrained341 against Loopio
Negative315 against Loopio · 5 against Responsive
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 Responsive were named in the same answer 190 times, of the 234 answers naming Loopio and the 219 naming Responsive. In those answers Responsive took the first choice forty-six times and Loopio twenty-six.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Loopio and Responsive 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 | | | | | ||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | | ||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | | | |
Loopio Responsive first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Loopio on the left and Responsive on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Loopio and Responsive stood in it.
Both were the first choice
2 of 14 modelsThe answer named them together, and the judge labeled each a first choice.Mistral SmallLoopio, Responsive alternatives: Expedience Proposal Software, Proposify
MiniMax M2.5Loopio, Responsive alternatives: SiftHub, Upland Qvidian
Loopio first, Responsive an alternative
8 of 14 modelsResponsive was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniLoopio alternatives: Responsive
Perplexity SonarLoopio alternatives: Responsive
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
GPT-6 LunaLoopio alternatives: Responsive
Muse Glimmer 30BLoopio alternatives: AutoRFP.ai, Responsive
Responsive first, Loopio an alternative
1 of 14 modelsLoopio was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Grok 4.1 FastResponsive alternatives: Loopio
Neither was the first choice, one was named
2 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
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 14Responsive4%#7 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
The order flips: Responsive leads at enterprise.
Responsive56%#1 of 8Loopio13%#2 of 8What 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 Responsive
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“Be Cautious With: Responsive (formerly RFPIO) ... This is the most criticized major platform based on consistent negative feedback” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“The AI assistant that generates RFP responses isn't always reliable, and users say it often repeats content from the library instead of creating accurate, tailored answers.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“It has a very steep learning curve and can be intimidating for casual SME reviewers. Implementation can take anywhere from 1 to 2 months.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · direct prompt · soft negative
“Shortlist 3-5 Tools: Responsive (enterprise-grade collaboration), Loopio (content-focused), Arphie/1up (AI-heavy for speed), Upland Qvidian (analytics-rich).” Grok 4.1 Fast · scale 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
“focus on those specifically designed for RFP workflows like Loopio, Responsive (formerly RFPIO), or Qvidian” MiniMax M2.5 · negative 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.