Loopio Review 2025: Real User Feedback from 610+ Reviews

You've heard the pitch. "Respond to RFPs faster. Win more business. Streamline your process."

But does Loopio actually deliver?

After analyzing verified user reviews from Gartner Peer Insights, Capterra, and real discussions from Reddit's sales and procurement communities, this Loopio review cuts through the marketing to show what practitioners actually experience with this Toronto-based RFP response platform.

What Is Loopio?

Loopio is RFP response management software designed to help organizations streamline how they respond to RFPs, RFIs, DDQs, and security questionnaires. Founded in 2014 and headquartered in Toronto, the platform centers on a content library approach where teams store, organize, and reuse approved responses across proposals.

The platform serves over 1,700 companies globally and positions itself as a solution for teams drowning in repetitive questionnaire work.

What Users Love About Loopio

Let's start with what Loopio gets right. Based on verified user feedback across multiple platforms, several themes consistently emerge.

Clean Interface and Templates

Loopio's visual design earns consistent praise. The interface feels modern compared to clunkier legacy alternatives, and that matters when you're trying to get busy Subject Matter Experts to actually use the tool.

One user on r/salesengineers described Loopio as having "intuitive templates and section reuse, good for standardizing repetitive content."

For teams implementing RFP software for the first time, this accessibility proves crucial. When your Sales Engineers only spend 5 minutes per week in the tool, every click needs to be intuitive.

Content Library Organization

The centralized content library remains Loopio's core value proposition. Users appreciate being able to store approved responses, organize them by category, and search for relevant content when new RFPs arrive.

A technical writer on r/technicalwriting explained their process: "We use a software called Loopio... The major headwinds in our RFP process are around content management and delays/unresponsiveness from other parties. Loopio helps with the content management and having a point person for other teams within the firm helps with the second."

When your library is well-maintained, pulling previous responses into new projects can legitimately save hours.

Time Savings When Combined With Other Tools

Some users report significant efficiency gains, particularly when pairing Loopio with additional AI tools.

One sales professional on r/sales shared: "Used to rely on our proposal team...switched to Loopio + ChatGPT and cut our turnaround time by about 50%. Still review manually, but it helps for first drafts. Wouldn't go back."

Note the key detail: they're using Loopio plus ChatGPT. The combination delivers results, not Loopio's native AI alone.

Collaboration Features

Loopio enables multiple contributors to work on responses simultaneously. For organizations where RFPs require input from Legal, IT, Sales, Product, and Finance, this matters.

A Gartner Peer Insights reviewer described Loopio as having "solid collaboration capabilities" and noted: "I like how easy it is to collaborate with individuals across my organization and add content over time."

Chrome Extension Utility

Gartner feedback highlighted the browser extension as a genuine convenience: "I like that I can quickly answer a template questionnaire, that I can download a completed copy of the questionnaire and I like the Chrome extension."

For teams working across web-based portals, having answers accessible without switching applications saves real time.

Where Loopio Falls Short

Now the harder truths. Consistent feedback patterns reveal several areas where Loopio frustrates users.

The Core Reality: It's Only As Good As Your Library

The most important thing to understand about Loopio comes from a sales engineer who's been through it. On r/salesengineers, one user laid out the uncomfortable truth:

"There's no magic solution that just does the work and comes up with answers on its own. They're truly only as good as the data that is provided and maintained by someone. RFP.IO and Loopio are both fine choices for this, but without ownership and someone accountable or maintaining integrity of answers, correctly tagging, etc..it's just as useful as a dump of questions in confluence."

That last line hits hard. Without dedicated library maintenance, your expensive RFP software becomes an overpriced document repository.

The "Magic" AI Feature: Promise vs. Reality

Loopio's Magic feature uses AI to suggest relevant content based on question analysis. In theory, it should dramatically reduce manual response time.

Reality tells a different story.

A Gartner Peer Insights user was direct about the disconnect: "AI magic is not working the way we want, however, it might be because the Library is not sufficiently maintained."

A Capterra reviewer was blunter: "Magic doesn't work well. The answers are usually wrong."

Another Capterra user with 2+ years on the platform noted: "Magic, great potential, not very helpful."

The pattern is clear. Magic works for basic, repetitive questions but struggles with nuanced requirements that need contextual understanding.

Still Pretty Manual

Perhaps the most telling feedback came from a procurement professional on r/procurement who moved on from Loopio:

"We were using Loopio last year, but it honestly was still pretty manual. All the tools I've tried still require editing but at least I'm not starting from scratch when using AI. Instead of losing a whole day, I can usually knock a big proposal out in a few hours now."

They switched to a different AI-powered approach and found better results. The "still pretty manual" characterization contradicts the automation promise.

Shelfware Risk Is Real

Another r/salesengineers discussion highlighted what happens when RFP software doesn't stick. While discussing RFPIO (Responsive), the comment thread revealed a common pattern.

"We started with RFPIO (Responsive). Correct that UI/UX is bad and every time someone hadn't used it in a few months there was always a steep learning curve. People gave up using it and it became shelfware (also, library was out of date). Was always curious about Loopio since it was supposed to have good UI/UX."

The library-out-of-date problem appears across multiple platforms. Without constant maintenance, these tools lose their value quickly.

Export Functionality Issues

Export problems emerge as a consistent pain point across review platforms.

A Gartner reviewer explicitly called out: "I dislike having to reformat things in my questionnaire after I export, I dislike that I cannot always fix mapping that I do manually and that I can never fix automapping."

Another Gartner user described the interface as having "limited export and view options."

Capterra feedback echoed this: "Export formatting is our biggest pain point... we end up spending a lot of time making exports look better after exporting from Loopio."

When you're racing against a deadline, spending an extra hour reformatting a document you just exported defeats the purpose of efficiency software.

Integration Limitations

Connecting Loopio to your existing tech stack isn't always smooth.

One Gartner Peer Insights user stated: "It cannot be integrated with other enterprise management tools."

Another noted: "Integration with third party solutions takes a lot of efforts and time."

For organizations with established workflows across Salesforce, SharePoint, and other systems, these integration challenges create friction.

The Automapping Problem

A particularly specific frustration emerged in Gartner reviews regarding mapping functionality.

One user explained: "I dislike that I cannot always fix mapping that I do manually and that I can never fix automapping."

When imported documents get mapped incorrectly, and you can't fix it, you're left with workarounds that eat into your productivity gains.

Interface Contradictions

Despite positive UI feedback from some users, others find Loopio's interface limiting.

A Gartner reviewer described their experience: "I find the Loopio user interface to be clunky and non-intuitive with a narrow range of view options."

What works for one team's workflow may feel constraining for another.

The Library Maintenance Reality

Here's the uncomfortable truth that Loopio's marketing downplays: the content library requires constant maintenance.

That Gartner review mentioning Magic "not working the way we want" because the "Library is not sufficiently maintained" captures a core tension. Loopio's value depends on library health, but maintaining that library requires dedicated resources many teams don't have.

The Reddit feedback was even more direct: without ownership and someone accountable for "maintaining integrity of answers, correctly tagging, etc..it's just as useful as a dump of questions in confluence."

Content rot is real. Without regular SME review cycles, content becomes outdated quickly. Products evolve, pricing changes, and compliance requirements shift.

Setup is labor-intensive. One Capterra user noted: "The initial setup is pretty labor intensive. It also took me a little while to understand the best way to sort stack, libraries, categories, and tags."

Who's Evaluating Loopio Against What?

The Gartner Peer Insights reviews reveal interesting competitive context. Users considering Loopio also evaluated:

• Responsive (formerly RFPIO)

• PandaDoc

• QorusDocs

• RocketDocs

• Upland

• AutoRFP.ai

One reviewer specifically mentioned evaluating AutoRFP.ai alongside Loopio before selecting Loopio, noting challenges with Loopio AI features not meeting expectations.