AI Indexes
GTM AI Index
Index › Sales › RFP response › PandaDoc vs 1up
RFP response software · October 2026 Edition

PandaDoc vs 1up

Zero of fourteen models named PandaDoc first on the direct prompt; zero named 1up. PandaDoc was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and 1up by eight and PandaDoc carries 35 labels and 1up 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.

PandaDoc

criticized challenger

South San Francisco, United States, founded 2013. Named in seven categories this edition.

1up

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share16%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate31%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#7A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels3511A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, PandaDoc reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Loopio was named alongside these two in thirteen of the fourteen direct answers. Loopio vs PandaDoc · Loopio vs 1up · PandaDoc vs Responsive

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.
PandaDocFirst choices, of fourteen models1up
Direct00
Paraphrase90
Comparative002 against PandaDoc
Budget-constrained01
Scale-constrained002 against PandaDoc
Negative007 against PandaDoc
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.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where PandaDoc and 1up 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
PandaDoc 1up first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, PandaDoc on the left and 1up on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where PandaDoc and 1up stood in it.

Neither was the first choice, one was named

1 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Kimi K2Loopio alternatives: AutoRFP.ai, PandaDoc, Responsive

Neither was named

13 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Tribble alternatives: AutoRFP.ai, Loopio, Steerlab
GPT-5.4 miniLoopio alternatives: Responsive
Gemini 3.5 FlashTribble alternatives: AutoRFP.ai, Loopio, Steerlab
Perplexity SonarLoopio alternatives: Responsive
Grok 4.1 FastResponsive alternatives: Loopio
Mistral SmallLoopio, Responsive alternatives: Expedience Proposal Software, Proposify
DeepSeek V4 FlashLoopio alternatives: AutoRFP.ai, Proposify, QorusDocs, Responsive
Llama 4 MaverickExpedience Proposal Software alternatives: AutoRFP.ai, Conveyor
Qwen 3.7 FlashAutoRFP.ai, Loopio alternatives: Qwilr, Upland Qvidian
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

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
PandaDoc leads by thirty-one points.
PandaDoc33%#1 of 14
1up2%#9 of 14
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
PandaDoc leads by fourteen points.
PandaDoc16%#2 of 10
1up2%#7 of 10
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
1up is not named for this buyer.
PandaDoc2%#5 of 8
1up—not named
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about PandaDoc

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three 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 are frequently cited as problematic choices for RFP response work” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · hard negative
“These are *proposal/presentation* tools, not true RFP management platforms.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative

What the models said about 1up

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

“Best budget-friendly pick: 1up” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · first choice
“Prioritize tools like Loopio, Responsive, or AI-native ones (e.g., 1up, AutoRFP.ai) with proven traceability.” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · alternative
“1up or AutoRFP.ai if you want lightweight AI assistance without a heavy admin burden.” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · alternative
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.