RequestFX review: pricing, features and alternatives (2026)

The verdict

RequestFX is the rare tool in this category you can buy without a sales call. It drafts cited answers to security questionnaires and spreadsheet RFPs from documents you upload, puts them back into the buyer’s original file, and costs $299 a month to start, with a 14-day free trial. For a small European software company where the CTO currently answers every SIG, that is a sensible first purchase.

The trade-off is maturity. RequestFX is a small Slovenian company with one Capterra review, no published SOC 2 or ISO 27001 of its own, and two legal documents that disagree about AI training. None of that rules it out. It does mean you should read the paperwork as carefully as you test the drafts.

Who I’d hand it to: a founder-led or lean B2B team, especially one in the EU, answering a handful of security questionnaires and RFPs a month. Who I’d steer elsewhere: a large proposal desk writing long narrative bids, or a buyer whose procurement checklist starts with “send us your SOC 2 report.”

Everything here comes from RequestFX’s own site and legal pages, its Chrome Web Store listing and its Capterra page as of October 2026. I have not used the product, so the checklist at the end is what I would run in the trial.

What RequestFX actually is

RequestFX is run by Fifth Axiom d.o.o., a company registered in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Its terms are governed by Slovenian law, with disputes heard in Ljubljana courts. The launch post introducing the product is dated May 30, 2025, so the product is not much more than a year old.

The pitch has widened since launch. The homepage still leads with RFPs and security questionnaires, but the about page now describes “an AI-native response management platform” covering RFPs, security questionnaires and regulatory reports. There are separate solution pages for compliance audits and regulatory filings. In practice, the job is the same throughout: take a structured questionnaire, answer it from your documents, hand back the filled-in file.

Named customers are few. Visionect, the e-paper display company behind Joan Workplace, has a full case study. Its co-founder and CTO says RequestFX saves him “up to a week of time per month,” and RequestFX says the team was onboarded within a day. The homepage adds testimonials from co-founders at Myelin and 1Home, plus a marketing analyst at Turtle.

One housekeeping note. The “Loved by Industry Leaders” strip shows logos for Laravel, SavvyCal, Statamic, Transistor and Tuple, and nothing on the site ties those companies to RequestFX. They match the sample logos that ship with a popular website template, and a /company page on the same site still carries that template’s placeholder copy about a fictional company. Do not count that strip as social proof.

How drafting and the knowledge base work

The workflow is three steps, and the site describes each one clearly.

Ingest and draft. You upload the questionnaire plus reference material. The getting-started guide lists Excel, Word, PowerPoint and PDF for questionnaires, and the RFP page adds third-party portals through the browser extension. RequestFX extracts every question, then drafts answers from your knowledge base: past questionnaires, internal policies and product documentation, plus your public website. You can set the answer language and the desired response length before it runs.

Review and collaborate. Each draft comes with a confidence score and a citation showing which document and section it came from. A built-in viewer puts the question and its source side by side. You assign questions to experts, set due dates on sections or people, and chat on the question itself. Statuses run from drafted to assigned to in review to approved, and automated reminders nudge owners who are behind.

Export. RequestFX writes the answers back into the original file, keeping tables and layout intact. The security page says this covers cells, columns, tabs and conditional sections. The single Capterra review singles out exactly this: complex Excel security questionnaires come back in the same format.

There is also a plain-English AI agent. You can tell it to rewrite answers, assign questions or bulk-update statuses, or to refresh outdated answers from your latest documentation.

On the knowledge base, RequestFX straddles both camps. The pitch is “no content library to build,” because drafts come straight from uploaded documents. But the pricing FAQ also says you can save reviewed answers to a central answer library that the AI reuses in future questionnaires. That is a sensible hybrid: start from documents, keep the answers you have approved.

A template library preloads 21 standards. SIG and CAIQ are there with HECVAT, and investor DDQs include ILPA and AIMA. It also covers less common forms like the Wolfsberg CBDDQ for correspondent banking, EcoVadis and CDP for sustainability, and CMMC with NIST 800-171 for defense suppliers.

Portals and the Chrome extension

Web portals are handled by an optional Chrome extension that is included with your account. It opens in a side panel next to the form, drafts answers from your knowledge base with citations, and maps them into the form fields. The privacy policy says it reads form fields only on the tab where you trigger it, and does not store browsing history.

The Chrome Web Store listing showed version 1.1.0, updated February 18, 2026, with about 10 users and five 5-star ratings. That is a small install base. Unlike some peers, RequestFX does not publish a list of named portals it supports, so test the exact portals your buyers use.

Security and compliance posture

Dialing the jokes down here, because this is where you need to slow down.

Residency is the strength. The privacy policy says all personal data and project data, including uploaded documents, are stored on servers located exclusively within the EU. Infrastructure is Google Cloud: Cloud Run for the app and Cloud SQL plus Cloud Storage for data. Knowledge-base search runs on Vertex AI Search, and Firebase handles authentication. Analytics come from Google Analytics and PostHog. The pricing FAQ adds that on-premise deployment is available for customers with specific data handling needs.

Certifications are the gap. The privacy policy says its hosting providers adhere to ISO 27001. It does not claim a SOC 2 report or ISO 27001 certificate for RequestFX itself, and I found no trust center. The 2025 launch post mentions Google SSO and two-factor authentication. Full single sign-on sits on the Enterprise plan.

The AI training language does not match. The terms promise, in bold, that your content will not be used to train or improve its models, or its providers’ models. The privacy policy, both documents dated January 5, 2026, lists “to train our AI models on response accuracy (processed anonymously where possible)” as a purpose. Those may be reconcilable, but get it in writing. The policy also refers to unnamed “trusted third-party AI providers,” so ask which model providers see your content and where they process it.

Pricing and how to buy it

This is the easy part. The pricing page lists three plans:

• Growth: $299/month. For teams answering fewer than 10 questionnaires a month. Unlimited questionnaires, 2 editor seats, unlimited viewer seats.
• Scale up: $999/month. For more than 10 questionnaires a month. Unlimited questionnaires, 10 editor seats, unlimited viewers.
• Enterprise: contact sales. Unlimited editors, SSO and support for multiple business units.

Both paid plans start with a 14-day free trial. (A June 2025 guide mentioned a 30-day trial with no card, so the offer has changed.) Prices show in USD with EUR and GBP toggles. The page does not say whether those prices are billed monthly or annually, which is worth asking before you sign.

The seat model rewards small teams. Viewers are free, so sales reps and reviewers can see work without a license. But only editors can draft and edit, and 2 editors is tight if security, sales engineering and legal all write answers. The jump from 2 to 10 editors is a $700 a month step.

Where it falls short

• Two editors on the entry plan. Growth caps editors at 2, and SSO waits for Enterprise.
• No vendor certification on show. ISO 27001 is named for the hosting providers only, and there is no SOC 2 report to request.
• Conflicting AI training language. The terms rule out training on your content, while the privacy policy lists training on response accuracy.
• Thin independent evidence. Capterra showed one 5.0 review in October 2026, from a reviewer listed as Luka B., a CTO, which matches the Visionect co-founder in RequestFX’s own case study. That reviewer also asked for a Confluence integration. RequestFX also has a Gartner Peer Insights listing, which I could not load.

Who should shortlist it, and who should skip it

Shortlist RequestFX if:

• You answer security questionnaires and structured RFPs every month and nobody’s job title is “proposal manager.”
• Your buyers or your own policies want customer data kept in the EU.
• You want to test on a real questionnaire this week without a demo call.
• Two editors plus free viewers covers your actual writers.

Skip it if your buyers will ask for your vendor’s SOC 2 report during your own security review. Skip it too if your main work is long narrative proposals with formal review gates, or if you need a long, checkable list of named portals and integrations.

How it sits next to its peers

RequestFX vs Bidara. Same $299 entry price, different shape. Bidara’s Starter plan is billed annually and caps AI-generated responses at 10 a month, with 3 users. RequestFX includes unlimited questionnaires and viewers but only 2 editors, and its trial runs 14 days against Bidara’s one-proposal trial. Bidara leans toward narrative RFPs for consultants. RequestFX leans toward spreadsheet questionnaires and security reviews. Neither lists SOC 2 or ISO 27001 of its own.

RequestFX vs 1up. 1up has a free-forever plan and a $300/mo Starter tier with unlimited users, and it lists SOC 2 and ISO 27001. It also works inside Slack and Teams, which RequestFX does not list. RequestFX wins on EU-only storage and file-format fidelity for Excel questionnaires. If you want a free start and chat-first answers for reps, 1up. If you need EU residency, RequestFX.

RequestFX vs AutoRFP.ai. AutoRFP.ai is the accuracy-first tool for writing winning responses in a workflow that is easy to run. Both publish flat prices and export answers back into the buyer’s original file, and both offer an EU hosting option. AutoRFP.ai starts at $899/mo with unlimited users and holds ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II, which matters when your own buyers ask for your vendor’s reports. RequestFX is a third of the entry price and lets you start without a call. Small teams on a tight budget should start with RequestFX; teams that need audit paperwork and more writers should look at AutoRFP.ai.

RequestFX vs Loopio. Loopio is the mature, library-first option with an EU environment, SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 and hundreds of G2 reviews. It is also quote-only and built for larger proposal teams with a content manager. RequestFX is the opposite trade: cheap, fast to start, light on governance and track record. Pick Loopio when the library and the review chain are the product. Pick RequestFX when getting the next SIG out the door is.

What to test in the trial

Fourteen days is enough if you plan it.

1. Upload your real knowledge base (policies, last year’s questionnaires, product docs), not a sample set.
2. Run a questionnaire you already answered and compare it to the version you sent, line by line.
3. Check citations on ten answers. Does each point to the section that actually supports it?
4. Watch the low-confidence answers. Are the scores low on the answers that are actually wrong?
5. Export an ugly Excel file with merged cells, hidden tabs and conditional questions, then open it in Excel.
6. Try the Chrome extension on a portal your buyers actually use.
7. Ask for the paperwork: the subprocessor list including AI providers, a DPA, and a written answer on whether your content is used for any model training.
8. Confirm the billing term and what happens to your data at cancellation.

The bottom line: a cheap, EU-hosted questionnaire tool with honest pricing that is worth a trial for small teams, as long as its missing certifications are not a deal-breaker for your own buyers.