GTM AI Index

Index › Products › AutoRFP · October 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

AutoRFP

6Judge labels

1First choices

1Negative labels

4 / 14Models named it

2Categories

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. AutoRFP was named 3 times in RFP response and 1 other category, where Loopio led with 25%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business14 of 68

under the label threshold

Mid-market37 of 82

under the label threshold

Enterprise43 of 54

under the label threshold

In rfp response · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named AutoRFP for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant	Since September 2026
RFP response software	Sales	0%	37 of 82	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Loopio at 25%
Proposal software	Revenue operations	0%	21 of 56	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by PandaDoc at 65%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for AutoRFP yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated AutoRFP across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.20	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labels1

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Best For: Teams looking for AI-first, rapid proposal drafting.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Proposals · comparative prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as AutoRFP, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AutoRFP was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Responsive6 of 63Not among the top eight

Loopio6 of 60Not among the top eight

Inventive AI4 of 60Not among the top eight

Upland Qvidian4 of 60Not among the top eight

PandaDoc3 of 61Not among the top eight

AutogenAI1 of 60Not among the top eight

Better Proposals1 of 60Not among the top eight

Conveyor1 of 60Not among the top eight

DeepRFP1 of 60Not among the top eight

GetAccept1 of 60Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named AutoRFP. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 6 of the 6 answers that named AutoRFP and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

inventive.ai4

responsive.io4

loopio.com3

arphie.ai2

autogenai.com2

autorfp.aiYour site2

cobl.ai2

linkedin.com2

sifthub.io2

sparrowgenie.com2

Twenty-three of the twenty-five domain citations in answers naming AutoRFP came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

responsive.io/blog/best-rfp-software3

inventive.ai/blog-posts/ultimate-rfp-response-software-buying-guide2

loopio.com/blog/loopio-vs-responsive2

speclens.ai/compare/best-rfp-software2

agiloft.com/pdfs/how-to-choose-enterprise-software.pdf1

airfptool.com/blog/evaluating-rfp-software-buyer-checklist1

arphie.ai/blog/comparing-rfp-proposal-software-loopio-responsive-and-arphie1

arphie.ai/blog/rfp-response-management-software1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

autorfp.ai ranks 2 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, AutoRFP takes 0% of first choices and Loopio takes 25%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “rfp response software”

Position for “best rfp response software”

–

not in the top ten

Organic visits to its site: about 38,771 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 867 · 157 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 810
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

9 ads · 9 text · 2 shown in the last 30 days

First shown March 2025, as Automatic Capital Operations Pty Ltd, verified. Ads started 2025-11 to 2026-10: 8 in the year, 1 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 37 of 82 in RFP response

Segment leader

25%

Loopio

First choices: 1 across its categories
Named in: 6 answers
Its own site cited: in 6 of the answers that named it

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on autorfp.ai

309

subdomains included

Content

206

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

16 · 32

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	150	20	2026-09-14	Proposals
Comparison	28	14	2026-09-16
Case study	14	1	2026-08-18
Conference or event	7	2	2026-10-15
Template or tool	4	undated
Glossary or explainer	3	0	2026-04-15

Most recent

2026-10-15Sme chase and how to win it conference or event
2026-09-16Best govwin alternatives comparison
2026-09-141up pricing blog
2026-09-14How Much Does AutogenAI Cost in 2026? blog
2026-09-14Iris pricing blog
2026-09-14Responsive vs autogenai comparison comparison

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page autorfp.ai exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.

Names read as AutoRFP

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as AutoRFP; a claim can dispute any of them.

Inventive AI / AutoRFP 1

Follow AutoRFP

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

The company

AutoRFP is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: Agentic AI RFP Software to Win Deals
autorfp.ai
For: global teams
autorfp.ai
Price stated: USD 899-1299 autorfp.ai
Starting price: 899 autorfp.ai
Free plan or trial: 30 Day Money Back autorfp.ai/pricing
Integrations claimed: 18 autorfp.ai
Certifications: SOC 2 Type IIISO 27001:2022GDPR & UK GDPRCCPAEU Cloud CoCSOC 2 Type II auditedGDPR Compliant
Hosting: USEUAUUS West (Oregon)EU Central (Frankfurt)Australia East (Sydney)
Customers named: SugarAIWorkforce.comfintechOSperkJobylonIMTCRed RoverMedeAnalytics

What AutoRFP's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: autorfp.ai, autorfp.ai/pricing, autorfp.ai/trust, autorfp.ai/features/mcp, autorfp.ai/customer-stories. A claimed page can correct any of them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when AutoRFP's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as AutoRFP, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for AutoRFP by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where AutoRFP is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name AutoRFP, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.