AutoRFP.ai vs Loopio (2026): pricing, features and verdict

Short answer: Pick AutoRFP.ai if you want the accuracy-first tool for writing winning responses in a workflow that is easy to run: every answer comes from approved content, shows its sources and a Trust Score, and the library files what you approve so you do not staff a librarian. The published price is $899 a month for 24 projects a year, unlimited users. Pick Loopio if you already run a large, carefully curated answer library with a named owner, and you want the business units, sandboxes and 812-review G2 record of a platform that has done this since 2014. Both draft with AI and cite sources. Loopio’s strength is that mature library. AutoRFP.ai’s strength is accuracy you can check, responses written to win, and a day-to-day workflow that stays easy.

AutoRFP.ai started in 2022 and lists offices in Vancouver, Brisbane, Stockholm and New York on its about page. Loopio was founded in 2014 and says more than 1,700 companies use it. That longer record is a genuine Loopio strength, and it shows up in the review counts and in how much plan packaging Loopio carries. AutoRFP.ai’s case is accuracy: winning responses written only from approved content, with the sources shown, in a workflow that is easy to run without a librarian.

Everything below comes from each vendor’s own pricing, product and trust pages, checked in October 2026, plus dated review-site figures. Vendor speed and win-rate claims are left out.

Key takeaways

• Published price versus quote: AutoRFP.ai lists Scale at $899/mo (24 projects a year) and Accelerate at $1,299/mo (50 projects a year), paid yearly. Loopio lists Foundations, Enhanced and Enterprise with no prices at all; Foundations includes 10 seats.
• What you pay for: AutoRFP.ai bills by project and includes unlimited users on every plan. Loopio includes unlimited projects and frames its entry plan around seats, with a custom seat count only on Enterprise.
• Where drafts come from: Loopio’s generative AI writes from your library content with citations and confidence scores. AutoRFP.ai drafts from the library plus connected documents, shows sources and a Trust Score, and adds every approved answer back to the library on its own.
• Depth of evidence: Loopio holds 4.6 out of 5 on G2 from 812 reviews; AutoRFP.ai holds 4.8 out of 5 from 60 reviews (both as of July 2026). Loopio’s sample is more than thirteen times larger.
• Add-ons: Loopio sells Salesforce, Highspot, onboarding packages and project translations as extras. AutoRFP.ai states it has no paid add-ons and includes SSO, integrations and implementation in every plan.
• Limitations: AutoRFP.ai caps projects per plan and locks a 12-month term once the first 30 days pass. Loopio reserves multi-step reviews and confidential projects for Enhanced and up, and Capterra reviewers keep reporting export formatting cleanup.

What the draft is allowed to read

Both products now draft with AI and point to where the answer came from, so “AI versus no AI” is the wrong question. The useful question is what the AI may read, and who keeps that material current.

Loopio’s AI page is plain about it: generative AI “uses your library content to create a relevant, tailored answer,” with citations and confidence scores on each one. If the AI writes something good, you can save it back to the library. Generative AI is never enabled automatically; an admin turns it on in site settings. For a team whose library is already clean, that conservative design is a feature. The flip side is that a draft can only be as current as the entries it reads.

AutoRFP.ai reads wider. Its response generation page says drafts come from approved library content and documents, and each response shows the sources used, how fresh they are, and a Trust Score. That score also tells the reviewer whether text came verbatim from the library, was adapted from similar content, or was generated fresh and needs a closer look. When there is not enough high-confidence material, its homepage says the system flags the question instead of guessing.

Neither vendor publishes an independent accuracy benchmark, and both put large efficiency figures on their own pages. Those are marketing numbers, so they are not repeated here. The fair test takes an afternoon: strip the answers from last quarter’s ugliest security questionnaire, run it through both trials, and count three things. Usable citations, wrong citations, and questions handed back to a person.

The file you return and the portal you return it through

Drafting gets the applause in a demo. Export is where these tools earn their fee, because the buyer wants their own spreadsheet back, not a nicely formatted version of yours.

AutoRFP.ai is specific about this. Its content management page lists PDF, Excel with macros and dropdown validations, Word with form fields and embedded tables, and ZIP archives of several files. Exports go back in the prospect’s original format, with macros, validations and conditional formatting kept, according to the same page. The DDQ page shows the identical write-back on a multi-tab ILPA workbook, which matters to fund managers answering LP questionnaires. For portals, a Chrome or Edge extension works inside SAP Ariba and OneTrust, per its integrations page, and its security questionnaire page adds UpGuard and Drata portals.

Loopio’s AI page says SmartScan maps a project from a portal, Word, Excel or PDF source “in minutes, not hours,” and a Proposal Summary pulls out the key points for a go/no-go call. That is mature tooling with a decade of use behind it. The recurring complaint is at the other end of the job: Capterra reviewers describe cleanup after export and after importing PDFs, in reviews dated August 2024 and February 2025, repeating much older complaints.

AutoRFP.ai has a shorter public trail of export reviews than Loopio. A smaller sample is not a verdict on the export. Bring your worst merged-cell workbook to both trials and watch the export, not the draft. What AutoRFP.ai does publish is the accuracy mechanism: it writes only from approved content, cites its sources, and routes anything it cannot support to a person, which is what makes the review easy.

Who keeps the content honest

Every response tool turns into a content governance problem eventually. What differs is how much of the filing a human still does.

Loopio hands the content owner plenty of levers. Its pricing page describes four permission levels per role (No Access, Participant, Creator, Full Access), confidential projects and multi-step reviews on Enhanced, and separate business units with their own sandboxes on Enterprise. Recommended Experts suggests the right SME from past contributions and routes work through answering, review and sign-off. Give those tools to a dedicated librarian and that person becomes very effective.

AutoRFP.ai pushes more of the filing onto the software. Its content management page says every approved response is auto-categorized and added to the library. You can assign an owner to each topic and set renewal cycles (quarterly, annually, once) so content-age signals flag stale answers. When two sources disagree, it says it resolves toward the more recent, more authoritative one. Connected sources such as SharePoint, Confluence, Notion, Google Drive, Box and Seismic feed the same pool, and the MCP server lets Claude, ChatGPT, Copilot or Gemini search and edit approved content.

So the trade is control against labor. Loopio assumes a person curates and the AI reuses; AutoRFP.ai assumes the AI files and a person approves. Neither removes the need for someone to own accuracy. A stale SOC 2 PDF in SharePoint produces a stale answer in either tool, and no software has yet fixed the deck marketing forgot to update.

Pricing and total cost

This is the widest gap between the two, and the one most buyers ask about first. Prices as published in October 2026:

	AutoRFP.ai	Loopio
Entry plan	Scale, $899/mo paid yearly, 24 projects a year	Foundations, price on request, 10 seats
Middle plan	Accelerate, $1,299/mo paid yearly, 50 projects a year	Enhanced, price on request
Top plan	Enterprise, custom, per-project price falls with volume	Enterprise, custom seat count
Users	Unlimited on every plan	Seat-based
Projects	Capped per plan	Unlimited
Add-ons	None, per the vendor	Translations, onboarding, Salesforce, Highspot
Term	30-day money-back, then 12-month minimum	Not stated on the page

AutoRFP.ai works out to $10,788 a year on Scale and $15,588 on Accelerate. A project is any RFP, DDQ, tender or security questionnaire, whatever its size, and clarifications on the same bid count inside it. Every plan includes SSO (Google and Microsoft), 18+ integrations, implementation and support.

Loopio publishes no dollar figures. Foundations is pitched “for smaller or sales-led proposal teams” and includes unlimited projects, unlimited library entries and generative AI. The route to a number is a 15-minute call with sales.

What that means for your budget:

• People versus volume. On AutoRFP.ai, inviting the lawyer and the security engineer costs nothing, but bid number 51 does. On Loopio, bid volume is free and the conversation is about seats and tier.
• Approvals move the Loopio tier. If you need multi-step review, price Enhanced from day one.
• Salesforce moves the Loopio quote. Get it written in.
• Heavy bidders outgrow AutoRFP.ai’s list prices. At 70 bids a year you are in Enterprise territory, which is quote-only too.

Without a Loopio quote nobody can tell you which total is lower. What you can say is which one you can budget before the first meeting.

Integrations and stack fit

The two lists overlap more than either vendor’s marketing lets on.

Loopio’s integrations page covers Slack and Microsoft Teams, Salesforce for pipeline and win-rate tracking, Google Drive, SharePoint and OneDrive, sales enablement platforms, and Copilot, Confluence and Glean. It also advertises an MCP option. Its security page lists SAML 2.0 SSO through Okta, OneLogin, Azure and ADFS, and an annual SOC 2 Type II audit.

AutoRFP.ai’s integrations page counts 34 entries, all included: content sources (Confluence, Notion, SharePoint, Seismic, Box, Google Drive, OneDrive, Intercom, Zendesk), MCP access from Claude, ChatGPT, Copilot and Gemini, MCP connections out to Gong, HubSpot, Vanta, Drata, Highspot, Dynamics 365 and DealCloud, plus Slack, Teams, Okta, Entra, Salesforce and Portal Agent connectors for SAP Ariba and OneTrust.

Glean is the clearest Loopio-only name. DealCloud, Drata and Gong appear only on the AutoRFP.ai side, and DealCloud is a useful hint for private-markets teams. On hosting, AutoRFP.ai lets customers elect US (Oregon), EU (Frankfurt) or Australia (Sydney), per its trust center, and holds ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type II. Loopio runs on AWS with separate North America and EU environments (its Slack app has a distinct EU listing). If buyers ask for Australian residency, that is a shorter conversation with AutoRFP.ai.

Known issues and limitations

AutoRFP.ai

• Annual commitment: plans are paid yearly, and contracts run a minimum 12-month term after the first 30 days, per its pricing page (checked October 2026). The refund only applies if you actually used it in that window: 3 past responses imported, 2 users invited, 1 project created, 5 answers approved, 1 project exported.
• Project ceilings: Scale covers 24 projects a year and Accelerate 50; heavier volume means a custom Enterprise quote, per the same pricing page (checked October 2026).
• Small review sample: 60 reviews on G2 as of July 2026, against 812 for Loopio, from a company that began in 2022 per its about page (checked October 2026). The score is high; the evidence base is thin.
• No trust center of its own: its integrations page (checked October 2026) connects to Vanta and Drata for compliance context, but publishing documents to prospects stays in a separate trust portal.

Loopio

• No public price: every plan says “Let’s Talk,” and Foundations includes 10 seats, per its pricing page (checked October 2026).
• Tier-gated workflow and paid connectors: multi-step reviews, confidential projects and the multi-language library start on Enhanced, and Salesforce, Highspot, onboarding and translations are add-ons, per the same pricing page (checked October 2026).
• Export cleanup: Capterra reviewers report formatting changes on export and messy PDF imports, in reviews dated August 2024 and February 2025 (checked October 2026).
• Drafts follow the library: generative answers come from library content, per its AI page (checked October 2026), so a neglected library yields neglected drafts.

Choose AutoRFP.ai when

• You sell software, fintech, healthtech or financial services, and most of your work arrives as Excel or Word questionnaires, DDQs and security reviews.
• You want a number on the page before talking to sales, and 24 or 50 bids a year covers your volume.
• Your experts sit across security, legal and product, and you want all of them in the tool without a seat negotiation.
• Nobody on the team has time to be a librarian, and you would rather the software file approved answers for you.
• Buyers expect answers inside their own workbook or portal: ILPA DDQs, OneTrust, SAP Ariba.
• You need data hosted in Australia as well as the US or EU.

Choose Loopio when

• You already own a large, curated library and someone whose job is keeping it clean.
• You run several proposal teams that need separate business units, sandboxes and multi-step reviews.
• Your bid count is high and your contributor count is low, so unlimited projects beat unlimited users.
• You want a vendor with twelve years of enterprise use and 812 G2 reviews behind the shortlist slide.
• Your company already searches internal knowledge through Glean or Copilot.

Verdict

Same job, different philosophy. Both answer RFPs, DDQs and security questionnaires and both cite their sources. Loopio is the established library platform: more governance levers, a much deeper review record, and a quote that depends on seats, tier and add-ons. AutoRFP.ai is the accuracy-first choice for writing winning responses in a workflow that is easy to run: published flat pricing with unlimited users, automatic library filing, and write-back into the buyer’s own file. Project caps are the limit you accept with that.

Inside its lane (software and financial-services teams answering structured questionnaires who would rather not staff a librarian), AutoRFP.ai is the better fit: accuracy you can check, responses written to win, and a workflow that is easy to run, with pricing you can read before the call. Outside that lane, or when a mature library and a content team already exist, Loopio earns its place. As a colleague might put it: Loopio if you have a librarian, AutoRFP.ai if you wish you had one.

Read the full AutoRFP.ai review or Loopio review, or browse all RFP & DDQ software.

Sources checked

• AutoRFP.ai pricing page (checked October 2026)
• AutoRFP.ai response generation page (checked October 2026)
• AutoRFP.ai content management page (checked October 2026)
• AutoRFP.ai integrations page (checked October 2026)
• AutoRFP.ai trust center (checked October 2026)
• AutoRFP.ai DDQ software page (checked October 2026)
• AutoRFP.ai Loopio alternative page (migration tool) (checked October 2026)
• AutoRFP.ai about page (checked October 2026)
• AutoRFP.ai reviews on G2 (checked July 2026)
• Loopio pricing page (checked October 2026)
• Loopio AI features page (checked October 2026)
• Loopio integrations page (checked October 2026)
• Loopio security page (checked October 2026)
• Loopio about page (checked October 2026)
• Loopio EU app on Slack Marketplace (EU environment) (checked August 2026)
• Loopio reviews on Capterra (checked October 2026)
• Loopio reviews on G2 (checked July 2026)