Key Takeaways
Loopio: Best for small-mid teams (or first-time RFP software users) with a dedicated content manager who wants a clean UI, fast onboarding, strong support, and essential integrations (Salesforce/Slack/HubSpot) under predictable per-user pricing.
Responsive: Best for mid-to-large enterprises with global customers, big tech stacks, and many concurrent projects, and needing deeper automation/governance, broader integrations/APIs, and flexible project-based and user-based pricing.
Both Loopio and Responsive are built to simplify RFP management, but they excel in different ways.
These legacy RFP tools get plenty of praise. In fact, Loopio scores a solid 4.7 out of 5 while Responsive has 4.5 out of 5 on G2.
But which one’s right for you?
Here’s the short answer: Loopio wins for clean UI and fast onboarding; Responsive is ideal for complex, project-heavy workflows with broader integrations.
Still, the real differences go deeper. This side-by-side review (based on real-world experience) compares their features, pricing, integrations, and support, while also exploring AI-powered alternatives to help you choose confidently.
Loopio | Responsive | |
Best For | Small-mid teams; first-time RFP users; dedicated content manager | Mid-large enterprises; global customers; deep stacks; many concurrent projects |
Stand Out Feature | Centralized content library | Wide integration ecosystem |
Price | $20,000 per year | Not available publicly |
Pros | Clean UI; fastest onboarding; strong support; essential integrations; multilingual governance | Broader integrations/APIs; higher automation; stronger governance for complex enterprise programs |
Cons | Manual library upkeep; import/export pains; less full response automation | Steep learning curve; intimidating for SMEs; occasional support inconsistency |
Customer Support | Consistently quick, thorough; 9.7/10 G2 support score | Friendly and helpful, but sometimes inconsistent or slower resolution |
AI / Automation | Magic drafts, copy-edits, summaries | Auto drafting and adaptive learning |
Content Library | Centralized library, multilingual | Unified hub, smart suggestions, stronger automation, governance controls |
Import/Export | Import Word, Excel, PDF; export to Word, Excel, HTML | Import Word, Excel, PDF; export to Word, PDF, Excel |
Whom is ‘Loopio’ useful for?
Loopio is best for teams with a dedicated content manager, especially in environments where AI use is more restricted across industries like healthcare and finance. It’s also ideal for organizations that require integrations with popular business tools, such as Salesforce, Slack, HubSpot, and other commonly used platforms.
Whom is ‘Responsive’ useful for?
Responsive (formerly RFPIO) is ideal for mid-to-large companies with a global customer base that have an extensive tech stack and need a secure tool that fits seamlessly into their existing systems. It’s also ideal for teams managing complex project coordination and handling a large number of projects, thanks to its unlimited content storage.
AutoRFP.ai: An Alternative
AutoRFP.ai is an AI-native RFP platform designed to help teams respond to RFPs, DDQs, RFIs, and RFQs faster and more accurately. With Instant AI Responses, 63% of answers are submitted without any edits, helping teams win more, faster, in a fraction of the time.
Here’s how AutoRFP.ai differs from other RFP platforms:
AI Flywheel: Eliminates manual library maintenance by automatically incorporating content updates as you complete RFPs, keeping your library fresh without extra effort.
Real-time learning: Continuously learns and improves from every completed RFP, enabling higher-quality and more accurate responses.
Semantic AI Search: Unlike Responsive systems that rely on keyword matching, AutoRFP.ai generates true AI-based responses using semantic understanding across prior answers.
Intelligent import: Seamlessly detects Excel-based RFPs and instantly fills out PDFs or Word documents in customer formats, solving the import and export issues users face with Loopio.
Transparent pricing: All plans are publicly available with unlimited users and full access to every feature, with no hidden add-ons or upgrades required.
Plan Name | Plan Cost |
Scale | $899/month |
Accelerate | $1,299/month |
Enterprise | Contact sales |
Ready to experience faster, smarter RFP management? Try AutoRFP.ai today and see how AI-driven automation can help your team win more bids with less effort.
Loopio & Responsive’s Pricing
Pricing represents a fundamental difference between Loopio and Responsive in their comparison. Both platforms offer configurable pricing with annual subscription requirements, but their underlying models serve different organizational needs.
Loopio
Loopio’s pricing model is designed around its user-based structure.
Loopio's user-based pricing: Loopio charges based on the number of users and the included features. While this provides predictable costs for core teams, it can become limiting when you need to involve multiple Subject Matter Experts across departments. The user-based model can hinder broader adoption, as each additional SME incurs an additional cost.
Responsive
Responsive takes a slightly different approach, focusing on concurrent project usage.
Responsive's project-based pricing: Responsive charges based on concurrent projects instead of users. This setup fits RFP teams that involve many contributors. However, RFP volumes can vary widely. One month you might handle ten active projects, and the next, none. That fluctuation can leave you paying for unused capacity.
Recent updates indicate that Responsive has also introduced per-user costs, in addition to project-based fees, which adds complexity to their pricing structure.
Side note: Newer platforms like AutoRFP.ai use transparent project-based pricing with unlimited users, eliminating the collaboration barriers inherent in traditional models.
Verdict
Between the two, Responsive offers more flexibility for larger, project-heavy teams, while Loopio suits teams with tighter user control. Interestingly, Loopio’s 2025 RFP Response Trends & Benchmarks Report revealed that 61% of companies achieve ROI within a year of using RFP software, demonstrating the tangible value of RFP automation.
Side note: Newer AI-native platforms, such as AutoRFP.ai, have since turbocharged ROI by eliminating manual upkeep and delivering faster, data-driven responses.
Ease of Use
Ease of use significantly impacts how quickly teams adapt and remain productive with new software. An intuitive interface saves time, reduces errors, and supports smooth adoption. Here’s how Loopio and Responsive compare in user experience.
Loopio
Loopio offers a more modern and visually appealing interface designed for intuitive use. The clean design reduces the learning curve, making it attractive for organizations implementing their first RFP software solution.
Responsive
Responsive prioritizes functionality and depth over interface simplicity. While it offers advanced customization and robust features, these can make onboarding more challenging.
Amber R, Sales Marketing professional noted:
“I also find the UI to be not very intuitive, with many simple actions buried under various menus, and even after using this product daily for several years, I still have to click a few different times and in a few different places in order to find what I want. In some cases I even need to contact support to find out how to do something that should be easy.”
This highlights how Responsive’s complexity can discourage occasional users.
Verdict
Loopio wins in ease of use. On G2, Loopio scores 9.1 versus Responsive’s 8.7, with users praising its user-friendly design and intuitive interface. Consider Loopio if ease of adoption is your top priority; choose Responsive if you have an experienced team and value advanced functionality over simplicity.
Customer Support
Here’s how Loopio and Responsive compare when it comes to customer support, based on user reviews and published feedback:
Loopio
Strengths:
Users frequently describe Loopio’s support as “quick and thorough” and responsive to questions.
The team is noted for ensuring they understand issues before responding and for following up with feedback.
Cheryl P, an RFP Manager, said, “They respond quickly and thoroughly. They always check to make sure they understand my question and then provide thorough instructions in their answer. They ask for feedback on how things could improve and track feedback so they know what’s important to work on next.”
Loopio publishes a G2 support score (9.7/10) and highlights its in-house support model.
Potential drawbacks/caveats:
Some users mention delays in support responses caused by time zone differences, noting that morning issues often aren’t addressed until later in the day.
Responsive
Strengths:
Many reviews praise Responsive’s support as “friendly,” “professional,” “patient,” and “always there when needed.
Ellinor B, a Bid Manager, said, “The Responsive team has been consistently friendly, helpful, and professional.”
Several users report that the support team is especially helpful during tight RFP deadlines.
Ravishankar S, Director of Bid & Proposal Management at Yellow.ai, said, “Customer support is awesome (the team is always there to help and resolve during tight timelines of RFP submissions when we hit a roadblock)”
Potential drawbacks/caveats:
Some users report that support can be inconsistent, and responses may not fully resolve an issue on the first contact.
A few reviewers mention that support staff don’t always deeply understand the RFP domain context or complex feature issues, which can slow resolution.
Lisa Haas, RFP Writer, said, “ While the support personnel are kind and polite, they don't understand RFPs, and they really don't know much about the software. I would guess that most clients know the software a lot better than the support team. And because the support team can never resolve questions or issues on the first contact, it takes far too much time to deal with them. Often, we just come up with our own workarounds rather than deal with the Support Team.”
Verdict
Loopio earns stronger praise for its consistent and reliable support, with users highlighting quick responses, clear communication, and attentive follow-ups. Responsive also provides fast and friendly support, but shows occasional inconsistencies. Overall, Loopio has the edge in dependable customer support quality.
Integrations
System integration determines how well RFP software fits into existing workflows. The Loopio vs. Responsive integration comparison highlights the distinct strengths of each.
Loopio
Loopio offers integrations with popular business tools, including HubSpot, Salesforce, Slack, and other common platforms.
The integrations focus on essential connectivity rather than deep workflow automation.
Responsive
Responsive offers 20+ native integrations and 75+ APIs connecting with Salesforce, Microsoft Office, Google Drive, and other enterprise platforms.
This extensive integration suite supports more complex organizational workflows while seamlessly connecting with your existing tech stack.
Verdict
Responsive wins for integrations, offering broader connectivity and deeper workflow compatibility across enterprise systems. Loopio covers essentials well, but lacks the extensive API flexibility larger teams may require.
AI/Automation/Smart Suggestions
Loopio
Magic: Draft responses based on your content library and contextual signals.
Copy-editing/style improvements: AI suggests edits grounded in data / best practices.
Summarization: Automatically condense long content or merge multiple responses into a concise answer.
Responsive
Auto-drafting: Answer up to ~80% of the questions automatically using the content library.
Machine learning: Learns how your team answers, so future suggestions improve over time.
Automation of repetitive tasks (workflow, notifications, versioning) to reduce manual overhead.
Verdict
Responsive leads in AI automation with higher auto-drafting accuracy and adaptive learning. Loopio provides solid AI assistance, but its focus is more on editing and summarization than on full response automation.
Content Library/Knowledge Base
Loopio
Centralized repository: Stores Q&A pairs, templates, and categorized content.
Governance tools: Supports duplicate checks, reviews, and version tracking.
Multi-language support: Enables translation for global teams.
Responsive
Unified knowledge hub: Houses approved Q&A, assets, and documents.
Smart automation: Auto-suggests relevant answers and detects duplicates.
Content governance: Assigns reviewers and maintains multilingual consistency.
Verdict
Both platforms offer strong content management, but Responsive edges ahead with smarter automation and broader governance features. Loopio remains ideal for teams prioritizing structured, multilingual content organization.
How to choose an RFP software
The right RFP software depends on what your team needs most. Focus on features that automate tasks and fit seamlessly into your existing workflow. Here are the key factors to consider when evaluating RFP software:
AI Response Generation
There’s no reason teams should start from scratch when AI can handle the heavy lifting and get you to a reliable first draft for your RFP response. Loopio and Responsive offer limited automation, with Loopio relying on older GPT-3.5 models and Responsive depending on keyword-based searches across rigid Q&A banks.
In contrast, AutoRFP.ai uses advanced reranker models and AI-driven semantic search to ensure accuracy and trust before generating content with the latest LLMs.
Experience smarter AI response generation that’s faster, more accurate, and built for modern RFP teams with AutoRFP.ai. Book a Demo
Content Library
Decide whether you need thorough tools to manage your library of content for past RFP responses.
For instance, Responsive works mainly in question-and-answer pairs, not auxiliary content ingested from websites or company documents, and it’s more rigid.
Meanwhile, Loopio requires constant manual library maintenance, which creates additional work instead of reducing it. Users report that after 6-12 months, reviewing an ever-growing library becomes overwhelming.
AutoRFP.ai addresses this challenge with AI-driven semantic search across all company information, supported by structured review cycles and advanced content management features that enable teams to exert greater control.
Manage content libraries smarter with AutoRFP.ai.
Content Import
Loopio users frequently encounter difficulties when importing complex RFP formats. Additionally, many report difficulties exporting responses in their original document format, resulting in extra manual formatting work.
AutoRFP.ai eliminates these issues through intelligent import that automatically detects Excel-based RFPs and instantly fills out PDFs and Word documents in client-specific formats.
Alternative To Loopio & Responsive: AutoRFP.ai
AutoRFP.ai is an AI-powered RFP software that automates the process of generating responses using your existing content, enabling faster, more accurate proposals. It uses AI Search + Response Engine which semantically matches your content to RFP questions, then uses LLMs to draft the answer.
Unlike Loopio and Responsive, AutoRFP.ai is AI-native: it uses semantic search (not rigid Q&A or keyword lookups) to draft accurate answers from all your company content. Unlike per-seat or mixed pricing, it offers transparent, unlimited-user plans and intelligent import/export that fills Excel, Word, and PDF in client formats.
Key features of AutoRFP.ai
AI Response Generation You Can Trust
AutoRFP.ai’s AI Response Engine uses a trust-based scoring system to show confidence levels for every answer, so you know exactly how reliable each response is.
On average, 63% of AI-generated drafts are submitted without edits, but real results go even further.
One client, Fiddler AI, completed a 600+ question security questionnaire, with 99% of responses requiring minimal editing, demonstrating the system's dependability and efficiency.
AI Semantic Search
AutoRFP.ai’s AI-driven semantic search scans all company information to auto-suggest accurate answers from past responses and your content library. Over time, it learns and improves, enabling faster and more precise responses in the future.
AI Translation
With AutoRFP.ai, language is never a barrier. The platform automatically translates RFP responses into over 30 languages.
It even adapts tone and spelling for US or UK English, ensuring every submission sounds natural, professional, and tailored, thereby boosting your chances of winning more bids worldwide.
Pricing
Plan Name | Plan Cost |
Scale | $899/month |
Accelerate | $1,299/month |
Enterprise | Contact sales |
Where AutoRFP.ai shines
Enterprise-grade security: ISO 27001 and SOC 2 certified, AutoRFP.ai hosts a private AI model that utilizes no customer data to train LLMs, making it ideal for highly regulated industries.
AI-native and easy to use: Built for the AI era from day one, AutoRFP.ai combines intuitive design with powerful automation. Recognized on G2 for Highest User Adoption, it offers unlimited users, ensuring quick adoption across teams.
Fast, high-quality responses: With generative AI at its core, AutoRFP.ai delivers accurate, source-backed answers that reflect win themes. Teams can get started in as little as 48 hours, supported by a 30-day money-back guarantee for full confidence.
Where AutoRFP.ai falls short
Reporting depth: AutoRFP.ai includes real-time dashboards for response quality and win rates, but some users would like to see deeper analytics and customizable reporting options, which are already in the roadmap.
Customer Reviews
Here’s what AutoRFP.ai users say about their experience:
Travis K. said, “AutoRFP.ai's RFP responses are extremely tailored and takes the context of how the question is asked into consideration much more than other systems I have previously used. The company is new and the dev and support team is fast to take into account feedback and updates.”
Aref A. said, “I think AutoRFP.ai is the perfect example of how to use AI in a tool that actually creates value. It literally saves us hours for every single RFP process and increases the quality of what we submit. We also use it as an internal knowledge hub which eliminates a lot of unnecessary internal questions. It's like having a colleague who is always available to answer most of your questions!”
Who AutoRFP.ai is best for
Mid-to-large B2B SaaS companies that serve enterprise clients and have dedicated RFP managers, bid writers, and account executives managing large volumes of RFP responses.
Financial services organizations, especially managed investment funds that process hundreds to thousands of RFPs and due diligence questionnaires each year under strict compliance requirements.
Highly regulated fund managers responsible for handling hundreds to thousands of Due Diligence Questionnaires (DDQs) and RFPs annually.
Experience AutoRFP.ai with complete confidence under our 30-day money-back guarantee. Book a demo today!
Loopio vs Responsive Vs AutoRFP.ai: Which Software to Choose?
Choose based on your reality: Loopio for the fastest onboarding, clean UI, and simple adoption across a core team. Responsive for complex workflows, broad enterprise integrations, and heavier governance across many concurrent projects.
If you’re after something beyond traditional RFP tools, one that’s AI-native, automates responses, and eliminates manual upkeep, then AutoRFP.ai is your best bet. It blends intelligent import/export, semantic AI search, and transparent pricing to deliver faster, smarter RFP management for modern teams.
Book a demo today and see how your team can respond to RFPs faster, smarter, and with total confidence.
About the Author
Robert Dickson
RevOps Manager
Rob manages Revenue Operations at AutoRFP.ai, bringing extensive go-to-market expertise from his previous roles as COO at an early-stage HealthTech SaaS Company. Having completed 100s of RFPs, Security Questionnaires and DDQs, Rob brings that experience to AutoRFP.ai's RFP process.
Read more from our blog
Product Demo
See it in Action
Find 30 minutes to learn more about AutoRFP.ai and what the ROI might be for you.