Twelve of fourteen models named Loopio first on the direct prompt; zero named PandaDoc. Both were named by all fourteen models and Loopio carries 64 labels and PandaDoc 35, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
South San Francisco, United States, founded 2013. Named in ten categories this edition.
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the RFP response software page.
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Loopio and PandaDoc were named in the same answer 149 times, of the 273 answers naming Loopio and the 598 naming PandaDoc. In those answers PandaDoc took the first choice fifty times and Loopio twenty-four.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | ||||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | ||||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | ||||||
| Perplexity Sonar | ||||||
| Grok 4.20 | ||||||
| Mistral Small | ||||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | ||||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | ||||||
| Kimi K2 | ||||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | ||||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | ||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B |
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“What to Avoid ... Loopio ... often require custom quotes typically ranging from $15,000 to $25,000+ per year” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Avoid (Unless Budget Allows Later): Loopio | Requires a custom quote; ... still enterprise-oriented.” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · hard negative
“Avoid enterprise tools like Responsive (formerly RFPIO), Loopio, or full AutoRFP.ai” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · hard negative
“Loopio — Often the top-rated for mid-market. Excellent content library, strong AI suggestions, clean collaboration, great Salesforce integration.” Grok 4.20 · scale prompt · first choice
“Prefer specialized RFP response platforms ... (e.g., Responsive/formerly RFPIO, Loopio, or alternatives like RocketDocs, Tribble, or AutoRFP.ai)” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · first choice
“the two names that consistently top the lists for RFP response / Strategic Response Management are Responsive, formerly RFPIO, and Loopio” Muse Glimmer 30B · direct prompt · first choice
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of four in this category shown.
“primarily sales proposal tools and are not designed for the specific workflows and compliance needs of RFP responses” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“Proposify and PandaDoc are proposal tools rather than RFP tools and the difference matters.” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · hard negative
“Start with PandaDoc if you need a general sales proposal tool—it offers the best combination of functionality, integrations, and price for growing teams.” Kimi K2 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“PandaDoc is the most frequently recommended default because of its mid-market G2 leadership, CRM integration depth and proposal-to-contract coverage.” Muse Glimmer 30B · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.