Every category where a model named Responsive 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	0%	16 of 79	6%	16	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Responsive 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 Responsive across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

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

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

Direct8 labels4

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative18 labels6not counted in share

Budget-constrained6 labels1

Scale-constrained9 labels2

Negative14 labels4not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative56 labels in all, every segment counted; 7 of the 17 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.

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

“geared toward larger enterprises... stronger AI, and more complex workflows but a steeper learning curve” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Proposals · scale prompt · alternative

“Designed for complex, collaborative RFP workflows with AI-assisted content and enterprise controls.” Perplexity Sonar · 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.

“these tools are over-engineered and too rigid for quick turnaround times” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Proposals · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Responsive, over the 55 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Responsive was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

PandaDoc46 of 5514Not in the top three

Loopio46 of 552Not in the top three

Proposify42 of 551Not in the top three

Qwilr36 of 552Not in the top three

Better Proposals28 of 554Not in the top three

GetAccept20 of 551Not in the top three

DealHub16 of 552Not in the top three

Conga14 of 551Not in the top three

Bonsai13 of 550Not in the top three

AutogenAI12 of 552Not 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 Responsive. 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 10 of the 55 answers that named Responsive and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

autogenai.com7

getaccept.com6

responsive.ioYour site6

sifthub.io6

lindy.ai5

flowcase.com4

lotuspetal.ai4

oneflow.com4

checkthat.ai3

cobl.ai3

Forty-two of the forty-eight domain citations in answers naming Responsive came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

autogenai.com/blog/best-proposal-management-software7

getaccept.com/blog/proposal-software6

sifthub.io/blog/best-proposal-software-tools6

lindy.ai/blog/proposal-software5

getaccept.com/blog/proposal-software-platforms-for-enterprise-sales-teams4

lotuspetal.ai/blog/2026/04/02/best-rfp-proposal-software-of-20264

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

responsive.io/blog/best-proposal-software-comparison4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Responsive

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

Responsive (formerly RFPIO) 6

The company

Responsive.

Website: responsive.io
Founded: 2015

From Wikidata, fetched September 14, 2026. These describe the company, not the product's standing, and a claimed page can dispute any of them. · Wikidata · Crunchbase

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 Responsive'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 Responsive, 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 responsive.io 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.