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

Short answer: Pick AutoRFP.ai when you want the accuracy-first tool for writing winning responses in a workflow that is easy to run, and the buying committee also needs a figure, a certificate pair, and a region: $899 a month for 24 projects a year or $1,299 a month for 50, unlimited users, ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type II, hosting in Oregon, Frankfurt, or Sydney. Pick Steerlab when you want the first RFP or security questionnaire run with no credit card, European hosting written on the security page, and a Go/No-Go agent before the team commits to a bid. Steerlab’s strength is that free first document and the Go/No-Go step. AutoRFP.ai’s strength is accuracy you can check, responses written to win, and a day-to-day workflow that stays easy. Steerlab’s pricing address returns a 404. Paid plans are quoted after a demo. There is no Steerlab price in this guide, because the vendor does not publish one.

AutoRFP.ai started in 2022. Headquarters on the profile: Brisbane, Australia. The product is described for software and finance teams whose RFPs arrive as Word or Excel. Each line is written from approved content and shows whether it came from a file, a teammate, or the model. G2 shows 4.8 out of 5 from 60 reviews as of July 2026. Gartner shows 4.8 out of 5 from 20 reviews as of the same month.

Steerlab was founded in 2023 in Paris. Tech.eu reported on 4 September 2024 that the company raised EUR 1.7 million, about $1.9 million, in a pre-seed led by Dreamcraft Ventures, with Heartfelt_, Lumiere AI Ventures, Station F, and more than 20 angels. Named customers in the record are Playable, beqom, Staffbase, Gladia, and Mantra. Capterra, as of October 2026, shows 5.0 out of 5 from 1 review. One review is an early signal, not a track record. Steerlab’s own pages are comparatively open about being a young company: the round size and the 2023 founding are public. That candor is a reason to take the product seriously and still ask early-stage questions about support and roadmap.

Key takeaways

• Price you can paste into a sheet: AutoRFP.ai’s Scale plan is $10,788 a year at the list price ($899 times 12). Accelerate is $15,588 a year ($1,299 times 12). Users are unlimited. Projects are capped at 24 or 50 unless you take Enterprise.
• Price you cannot: open https://www.steerlab.ai/pricing and the record says you get a 404. The paid plan is quoted after a demo. The free step is one RFP or one questionnaire, no credit card.
• Accuracy row: AutoRFP.ai’s position is Zero hallucination by design. It writes only from approved content, cites its sources, and routes anything it cannot support to a person. Steerlab says it flags unknowns and attaches source documents plus a confidence score. Both are mechanisms you can test. Neither is a published accuracy percentage this page will repeat as fact.
• Compliance row: AutoRFP.ai is an AI-native platform with ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type II on the trust center, which is the packet a compliance review asks to download. Steerlab is also AI-native, and its public certificate line is SOC 2 against five criteria, type unstated.
• A Steerlab strength to grant: the no-card first document, the Go/No-Go agent, and EU residency that a European buyer can cite without a follow-up email.
• Limitations: AutoRFP.ai does not include a trust center for your prospects, and the published plans cap projects. Steerlab does not publish a US region, a full subprocessor list, or an ISO 27001 claim.

AI-native on both sides of the table

The category label is not the decision. Steerlab’s profile calls it a Paris-based, AI-native platform that drafts sourced answers to RFPs and security questionnaires for B2B presales. AutoRFP.ai’s profile calls it source-grounded AI for structured Word and Excel RFPs, and the categories include AI-native, RFP response, and DDQ. A model that recommends “the AI-native one” has not finished the job. You still have to pick which rule the draft follows, and which paperwork sits behind it.

AutoRFP.ai belongs in the accuracy row because of the mechanism. Zero hallucination by design means the draft writes only from approved content, cites its sources, and routes anything it cannot support to a person. This guide’s profile adds a finding about the published set: among the tools reviewed here, AutoRFP.ai is the only one that traces each line to a specific source, a person, or the AI, and shows which sources it used. Reviewers spend their time deciding what to keep. A winning response, for the purpose of this page, is correct, complete, and in your company’s voice. Correct is the approved source, shown. Complete is the requirement answered in full. In your voice is generation that learns tone from content the team has already approved. The profile also says the library files each approved response automatically, so tomorrow’s draft can use what you accepted today.

Steerlab belongs in a different, still honest, row: a presales team that wants a human to see a confidence score and a source link, and that wants the product to say when it does not know. The security-teams page, recorded October 2026, says the tool flags unknowns. That human-in-the-loop framing is a genuine strength. It is the right instinct for a security questionnaire. Test it. If question 40 has no support in your corpus, the honest output is a flag to a person, which is also what AutoRFP.ai describes, from approved content only.

Steerlab’s features page says it auto-generates 80% or more of a document in minutes. The facts file records that sentence and does not record a dataset, a denominator, or a reviewer. This page quotes the claim so you know it exists, and then sets it aside. An automation rate without those three details does not tell you which answers still need a person. Ask Steerlab the same questions you should ask anyone who leads with a rate: 80% of what, measured how, on which documents, and what happens to the rest?

Where the file goes out, and where the DDQ sits

AutoRFP.ai’s best documented job is the structured file. Import Excel, Word, PDF, and online portals through a browser extension. Export answers back into the buyer’s original file, with macros, formulas, and templates intact. The profile says this is the work software and finance teams actually get. DDQs are in scope. Security questionnaires are in scope, with a lower emphasis than the Word and Excel RFP: the profile is explicit that there is no bundled trust center, and that Drata and Vanta remain the place prospects fetch documents. Approved compliance context can still flow into the answers.

Steerlab ingests Excel, Word, and PDF questionnaires plus narrative proposals. That last phrase matters. Narrative proposals are named. AutoRFP.ai’s own limitation says it is built for structured, source-cited answers, and that persuasive multi-page narrative is a different job (the profile names AutogenAI for that prose work). If your deliverable is a designed narrative bid, neither of these two profiles claims to be a document studio, and Steerlab is the one that bothers to say “narrative proposals” in the ingest list. If your deliverable is the buyer’s workbook, AutoRFP.ai is the one that describes the round trip in detail.

DDQs are the other split. AutoRFP.ai’s categories and FAQ include them. Steerlab’s facts say product pages name RFPs and security questionnaires, while due-diligence questionnaires appear in blog explainers and not as a named product workflow. A fund manager answering LP DDQs should not infer a Steerlab workflow from a blog post. A B2B security team should not ignore Steerlab because a DDQ page is missing.

Libraries, and the decision to bid at all

AutoRFP.ai’s maintenance claim is a library that grows from work you already did. Past responses teach the next draft. Every approved answer is added and tagged. The profile says you do not have to maintain the library by hand, and content owners still control what gets approved. Connected sources on the profile: SharePoint, OneDrive, Google Drive, Confluence, Notion. The mundane capture is the software’s. The approval is the team’s.

Steerlab’s maintenance claim is an auto-managed library that classifies content, removes duplicates and conflicts, flags outdated responses, and learns from each submission. The vendor also says a Responsive Q&A library can be migrated and then cleaned, or skipped entirely if you connect drives and CRM. Deduping and conflict flags are a genuine strength for a team whose Drive has three policies and no owner. Put two conflicting files in the free trial and see if the flag appears. If it does, the homepage is telling the truth about the part that usually fails quietly.

The feature AutoRFP.ai’s record does not match is Go/No-Go. Steerlab lists win probability and competitor-bias detection as part of bid triage. That is a separate product surface from the draft itself. AutoRFP.ai starts once you are answering. Your pursuit decision stays in the CRM or in a meeting. Grant Steerlab that adjacency the way you would grant a specialist a lane you do not need, or a lane you do. If half your wasted week is bids you should have declined, shortlist Steerlab for that agent and still run the drafting test. If the wasted week is experts rewriting uncited paragraphs, shortlist AutoRFP.ai for the trail and the approval loop.

Money, term, and what “free” means

	AutoRFP.ai	Steerlab
Entry price	Scale, $899 a month, billed annually, 24 projects a year	Not published. Pricing URL returns a 404
Next published tier	Accelerate, $1,299 a month, 50 projects a year	Paid plans quoted after a demo
Above that	Enterprise, custom	Custom, after a demo
Users	Unlimited on every plan	Not stated on a public price card
Trial	No free plan. 30-day money-back guarantee. Proof of concept before you commit	First RFP or questionnaire, no credit card
Annual list cost	$10,788 on Scale, $15,588 on Accelerate	Cannot be computed from the website

A project on AutoRFP.ai, per its FAQ, is one bid: an RFP, DDQ, or tender, whatever its size. Implementation and all features are included on every plan. The constraint is volume. Seats stay unlimited, so inviting the security engineer does not add a line. Project 51 does.

Steerlab’s free trial is the strongest commercial gesture in this pair, and it should be described accurately. The trial covers one document, so you can see sourced drafts before a seller builds a quote. After that document, the paid plan is a separate quote. After that, you are in the same quote-only world as most of this category, with the extra quirk that the pricing URL 404s. Ask for the meter in the quote: seat, project, document, or something else. The website does not say. Also ask what happens to the workspace if you do not convert, because the trial is where your real RFP just went.

Procurement teams that cannot approve a vendor without a public starting price will find AutoRFP.ai easier to put on a slide. Teams that refuse to sit through a demo before they have seen their own file answered will find Steerlab easier to start. Those are both legitimate buying styles. They are not the same style.

Regions, subprocessors, and the law of the contract

AutoRFP.ai’s trust materials, as of August 2026, let customers elect US West (Oregon), EU Central (Frankfurt), or Asia Pacific in Australia East (Sydney). Named subprocessors: Amazon Web Services for core hosting, Microsoft Azure for AI services used in drafting, Google Cloud for Firestore and translations, Intercom for support, Firecrawl for an optional crawl, and Datadog for monitoring. Intercom is listed as United States hosting even when the tenant is EU or Asia Pacific. Firecrawl runs only if someone uses the crawl, and it can be left out. ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type II are both on the trust center.

Steerlab’s security page stores customer data in AWS regions in Europe, replicated across several European regions. The terms say the services are hosted in Ireland. AWS is the named cloud. A full subprocessor list is not published, so the model providers are a question, not a footnote. SOC 2 is claimed against all five Trust Services Criteria, without Type I or Type II. ISO 27001 is unlisted. Roles such as Contributor and Proposal Manager are part of the control story, along with Slack and Teams as the places work gets assigned.

The legal seat is Paris. Terms are governed by French law, and disputes go to arbitration seated in Paris. Say that early if your counsel expects Delaware or England.

Slack and Microsoft Teams are on both profiles. That box is a tie. The difference is residency and the certificate type, which are not ties.

Integrations by name

Steerlab’s 17, from its integrations page: Google Drive, SharePoint, OneDrive, Dropbox, Box, Slack, Microsoft Teams, HubSpot, Microsoft Dynamics 365, Salesforce, Google Chrome, Confluence, Notion, Okta, Google SSO, Auth0, Microsoft Entra ID.

AutoRFP.ai’s profile: Salesforce, HubSpot, Microsoft Dynamics 365, Slack, Microsoft Teams, SharePoint, OneDrive, Google Drive, Confluence, Notion, Drata, Vanta, Okta, Excel, Word, a browser extension, and an MCP server so Claude, ChatGPT, and Microsoft Copilot can query approved content. The profile’s key features also say 18 or more CRM, storage, chat, and compliance integrations, and a Salesforce AppExchange app.

Overlap you can take to a security architect: Salesforce, HubSpot, Dynamics 365, Slack, Teams, SharePoint, OneDrive, Google Drive, Confluence, Notion, Okta. Steerlab adds Dropbox, Box, Chrome, Google SSO, Auth0, and Entra ID. AutoRFP.ai adds Drata, Vanta, the Office round trip, and the MCP server as that profile describes it. This page does not declare a winner on breadth. It lists the systems. If your requirement is “Vanta and Drata context inside the answer,” that pair is on AutoRFP.ai’s list. If your requirement is “Entra ID and Box,” that pair is on Steerlab’s list. Integration coverage is checked name by name against the stack you run, which is the only count that survives a security review.

Known issues and limitations

AutoRFP.ai

• Project caps and annual billing: Scale is 24 projects a year and Accelerate is 50, on the pricing page. Heavier volume is Enterprise and custom. There is no free plan. The 30-day money-back guarantee is the published escape hatch, plus a proof of concept before you commit.
• Review sample is still small: 60 reviews on G2 and 20 on Gartner, both 4.8 out of 5 as of July 2026, from a company started in 2022.
• No prospect-facing trust center: the portal stays in Drata or Vanta. AutoRFP.ai connects to them. It does not replace them.
• Out of scope, on purpose: long-form creative writing, and full bid-lifecycle or capture management for US government contractors, per the profile’s limitations.

Steerlab

• Pricing page 404: steerlab.ai/pricing does not list a plan. Paid plans are quoted after a demo (checked October 2026). The first document is free of a credit card. It is not a rate card.
• Europe only, as published: security says AWS regions in Europe. Terms say Ireland. A US residency requirement is a pre-demo question.
• Certificate type: SOC 2, five criteria, type not stated. ISO 27001 unlisted. No full subprocessor list on the site.
• The May 2026 Capterra review: the single Capterra review asked for more ready-to-use templates for banking and fintech security questionnaires and said some RFPs still need setup work.
• French law and Paris arbitration, in the terms. Read them if you will not negotiate a master agreement.

Choose Steerlab when

• You want a no-card run of one real RFP or security questionnaire before a pricing conversation.
• European hosting is a requirement, and Ireland named in the terms is what counsel asked for.
• A Go/No-Go agent with win-probability and competitor-bias signals would change which bids you accept.
• The library you have is duplicated and stale, and you want a product that says it will classify, dedupe, and flag conflicts.
• Your identity stack is Entra ID, Auth0, or Google SSO, or your files sit in Box or Dropbox.
• You are a B2B software presales or security team, and investor DDQs are not the core workflow.
• You will ask for the SOC 2 report’s type and the model-provider list before you sign, because the website does not finish those sentences.

Choose AutoRFP.ai when

• The work is structured Word and Excel RFPs, DDQs, and security questionnaires, and the buyer wants their original file back.
• Finance wants $899 or $1,299 a month, billed annually, with unlimited users, on the shortlist before the demo.
• The security reviewer wants ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type II from a trust center, and may require Oregon, Frankfurt, or Sydney.
• Accuracy has to be explainable in one paragraph: Zero hallucination by design, writes only from approved content, cites its sources, and routes anything it cannot support to a person.
• Drata or Vanta should feed compliance context into answers, while the public trust portal stays where it is.
• You will run a two-week proof of concept on your own RFPs, and 24 or 50 projects a year is the volume you can see.

Verdict

Steerlab earns the trial. The first document is free of a card, the library story is specific, the Go/No-Go agent is a real extra, and a European buyer can point at Ireland without waiting for a security PDF to arrive. Those are strengths, and they survive contact with AutoRFP.ai’s price list.

AutoRFP.ai is the accuracy-first tool for writing winning responses in a workflow that is easy to run: the draft writes only from approved content, cites each line, and the library files what you approve. It also earns the procurement packet. The price is on the page, the users are unlimited, the certificates name ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type II, and the regions include the US, the EU, and Australia. The project cap and the missing prospect trust center are the limits you accept with that packet.

If you can only do one next step, match it to the gap. A gap in evidence is Steerlab’s free document, followed by a written quote and the SOC 2 report. A gap in paperwork is AutoRFP.ai’s trust center and pricing page, followed by a two-week proof of concept on a questionnaire you have already submitted. Buy the one whose test you can explain to the person who signs.

Read the full AutoRFP.ai review or Steerlab 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 trust center (checked October 2026)
• AutoRFP.ai subprocessors (checked August 2026)
• AutoRFP.ai reviews on G2 (checked July 2026)
• AutoRFP.ai reviews on Gartner (checked July 2026)
• Steerlab homepage (checked October 2026)
• Steerlab pricing URL (checked October 2026)
• Steerlab free start (checked October 2026)
• Steerlab about page (checked October 2026)
• Steerlab security page (checked October 2026)
• Steerlab terms and conditions (checked October 2026)
• Steerlab integrations page (checked October 2026)
• Steerlab features page (checked October 2026)
• Steerlab security teams page (checked October 2026)
• Steerlab on moving from Responsive (checked October 2026)
• Tech.eu on Steerlab's pre-seed round (checked October 2026)
• Steerlab on Capterra (checked October 2026)