Every category where a model named Loopio 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
Proposal software	Revenue operations	2%	9 of 79	11%	18	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Loopio yet. The next is due October 1, 2026. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	1	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	3	1	0	4
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	0	0	2
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	2	0	0	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	1	2
Kimi K2	0	0	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	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

Direct11 labels1

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative17 labels6not counted in share

Budget-constrained5 labelsNone

Scale-constrained12 labels2

Negative17 labels5not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative62 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 14 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.

“Loopio is often recommended for mid-market teams (50–300 RFPs/year), priced around $25K–$75K/year” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Proposals · scale prompt · first choice

“invest in Enterprise Response Management systems like Responsive (formerly RFPIO) or Loopio” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Proposals · negative prompt · alternative

“If you answer security questionnaires or complex RFPs, go with SiftHub or Loopio.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Proposals · comparative prompt · alternative

“Loopio and Responsive are mature, well-built tools that cover the RFP response workflow” Claude Haiku 4.5 · 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.

“Choose Loopio only if RFPs are central to your sales process — it's overkill for standard proposals.” Kimi K2 · Proposals · direct prompt · soft negative

“notoriously expensive ($$$) and require weeks of training and configuration” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Proposals · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Loopio, over the 62 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Loopio was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

PandaDoc55 of 6218Not in the top three

Proposify47 of 622Not in the top three

Responsive46 of 625Not in the top three

Qwilr44 of 623Not in the top three

Better Proposals30 of 625Not in the top three

GetAccept21 of 620Not in the top three

DealHub16 of 621Not in the top three

AutogenAI13 of 622Not in the top three

Qvidian13 of 621Not in the top three

Conga13 of 620Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. 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 Loopio. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 9 of the 62 answers that named Loopio and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

autogenai.com6

getaccept.com5

flowcase.com4

oneflow.com4

sifthub.io4

g2.com3

lindy.ai3

loopio.comYour site3

lotuspetal.ai3

pandadoc.com3

Thirty-five of the thirty-eight domain citations in answers naming Loopio came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

autogenai.com/blog/best-proposal-management-software6

getaccept.com/blog/proposal-software5

oneflow.com/blog/best-proposal-management-software4

sifthub.io/blog/best-proposal-software-tools4

flowcase.com/blog/top-proposal-management-solutions-for-enterprise-12-solutions-compared3

g2.com/categories/proposal3

getaccept.com/blog/proposal-software-platforms-for-enterprise-sales-teams3

lindy.ai/blog/proposal-software3

Pages are listed as the models cited 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 Loopio'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 Loopio, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at loopio.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.