Tenderbolt is the best AI tool for proposal writing: it drafts a tailored proposal from your own knowledge, runs Go/No-Go analysis in minutes and answers questionnaires automatically, though its price is not published. AutogenAI is #2 for large bids and grants, and Responsive is #3 for high-volume RFP teams.
Starter $13 per month billed annually ($19 monthly); Premium $21 ($29); Enterprise $42 ($49), each per user
Freelancers and small businesses sending signed, tracked proposals
Pick by what you want
Best overall
Tenderbolt
Best for large bids and grants
AutogenAI
Best for high-volume RFPs
Responsive
Best answer library
Loopio
Best interactive sales proposals
Qwilr
The ranking
1
Tenderbolt
Answrs VerdictThe most complete AI tender and proposal drafter.
Price: Not publishedProposal drafting: Generates a customizable proposal tailored to each client, with structure aligned to the client’s requirements and content grounded in your internal knowledgeGo/No-Go: Go/No-Go analysis in minutes: key issues, mandatory requirements, risks and red flagsQuestionnaires: Automated response to compliance questionnaires and Excel gridsUsers and security: Adopted by 500+ companies; SOC 2 Type II, EU hosting, AES-256 encryption and SSO / SAML
Tenderbolt turns your past RFP responses and internal documents into a knowledge base, then generates a customizable proposal tailored to each client. It runs Go/No-Go analysis in minutes, answers compliance questionnaires and Excel grids automatically, and lists SOC 2 Type II, EU hosting and SSO / SAML. It is adopted by 500+ companies. Pricing is not published.
Go ifBid teams answering RFPs, RFQs and public tenders from their own past responses
Skip ifYou need a published price before a demo
Why #1 over #2: It covers go/no-go, questionnaires and the proposal in one tool, while AutogenAI publishes less about questionnaires.
2
AutogenAI
Answrs VerdictThe best AI writer for large bids and grants.
Price: Not publishedFocus: AI proposal writing, grant writing and RFP management, from finding opportunities to compliant outlines and validated submissionsFederal: Calls its federal edition the only FedRAMP High-authorized platform covering the full BD lifecycleUsers: Trusted by 270+ companiesAwards: Says it has won G2 awards for Best ROI, Fastest Implementation and Best Support
AutogenAI is built for proposal writing, grant writing and RFP management, from finding opportunities to compliant outlines and validated submissions. It calls its federal edition the only FedRAMP High-authorized platform covering the full BD lifecycle, and says 270+ companies trust it. Pricing is not published.
Go ifEnterprise, federal and grant teams writing long proposals
Skip ifYou want a self-serve plan with a posted price
Why #2 over #3: Its grant and federal editions suit long bids better than Responsive’s library-first approach.
3
Responsive
Answrs VerdictThe most proven RFP response platform.
Price: Emerging Edition starting from $10,000; Growth and Enterprise editions are contact salesAI: Emerging Edition includes AI-powered response support and an AI & automation studio; Enterprise adds flexible custom AIScale: 2000+ companies and 8.7M+ Q&A pairs maintained on the platformFortune 100: 25+ of the Fortune 100 use ResponsiveSpeed claim: Says its AI drafts answers so teams respond to RFXs, questionnaires and assessments 80% faster
Responsive, formerly RFPIO, is an RFP response platform whose Emerging Edition starts from $10,000 and includes AI-powered response support and an AI & automation studio. It says 2000+ companies and 25+ of the Fortune 100 use it, with 8.7M+ Q&A pairs on the platform.
Go ifLarge bid and proposal teams that answer RFPs and security questionnaires every week
Skip ifYou are a solo seller who wants a monthly plan
Why #3 over #4: It has the largest published customer base, while Loopio’s plans are all Let’s Talk.
4
Loopio
Answrs VerdictThe best answer library with built-in AI.
Price: Not published (plans are Let’s Talk)Foundations plan: Unlimited Projects, Unlimited Library Entries and Generative AIHigher plans: Enhanced adds a multi-language library, confidential projects and multi-step reviews; Enterprise adds separate business unitsUsers: Says 1700+ companies use itAI assistants: Loopio now connects to Claude and ChatGPT through the Loopio MCP
Loopio’s Foundations plan includes Unlimited Projects, Unlimited Library Entries and Generative AI; Enhanced and Enterprise add a multi-language library, multi-step reviews and separate business units. Prices are not published, it says 1700+ companies use it, and it now connects to Claude and ChatGPT through the Loopio MCP.
Go ifProposal teams that want a managed library of approved answers with generative AI
Skip ifYou want to see a price online first
Why #4 over #5: Its generative AI comes with every plan, while Inventive AI is newer.
5
Inventive AI
Answrs VerdictThe fastest RFP first drafts with source checks.
Price: Not publishedSpeed: Says RFP responses are 90% faster from intake to first draftAccuracy: Claims 95% accurate AI responsesKnowledge hub: Syncs previously submitted RFPs and content from SharePoint, Notion and Google Drive in one clickGuardrail: Shows an unanswerable question flagged for an SME instead of an invented answer
Inventive AI says RFP responses are 90% faster from intake to first draft and claims 95% accurate AI responses. Its knowledge hub syncs past RFPs and content from SharePoint, Notion and Google Drive, and its demo shows an unanswerable question flagged for an SME instead of an invented answer. Pricing is not published.
Go ifTeams that want fast first drafts of RFPs and security questionnaires with cited sources
Skip ifYou only send short sales proposals
Why #5 over #6: It shows its sources and flags gaps, while Arphie leads on audit trails.
6
Arphie
Answrs VerdictThe most transparent AI answers.
Price: Not publishedTransparency: Shows the exact sources used for each AI answer and a confidence levelConnections: Live connections to Google Drive, SharePoint, Confluence, Notion, Seismic and HighspotSecurity: SOC 2 Type 2 compliant, with Zero Data Retention agreements with model platformsSwitching: Says switching from another RFP tool usually takes less than a week
Arphie shows the exact sources behind each AI answer plus a confidence level. It has live connections to Google Drive, SharePoint, Confluence, Notion, Seismic and Highspot, is SOC 2 Type 2 compliant with Zero Data Retention agreements, and says switching usually takes less than a week. Pricing is not published.
Go ifTeams that want to audit why the AI answered the way it did
Skip ifYou want a flat posted price
Why #6 over #7: Its answer audit trail is clearer than Qvidian’s generative features.
7
Qvidian
Answrs VerdictThe veteran RFP suite with generative AI added.
Price: Not publishedAI: Qvidian AI Assist generates and revises responses and works with an organization’s own contentRevisions: Revise responses for tone, length and voice with a few clicksReporting: 70+ available reports and a custom drag-and-drop report builderBanks: Trusted by 8/10 of the largest United States banks
Qvidian from Upland Software adds Qvidian AI Assist to a long-running RFP suite, generating and revising responses from your own content, with tone, length and voice changes in a few clicks. It offers 70+ reports and says 8/10 of the largest United States banks trust it. Pricing is not published.
Go ifFinance and enterprise teams with long RFP, DDQ and security questionnaire workloads
Skip ifYou want a lightweight tool for short proposals
Why #7 over #8: It handles RFPs and DDQs, which Qwilr’s sales proposals do not.
8
Qwilr
Answrs VerdictThe best interactive proposal pages with AI prefill.
Price: Starter from $35 per user a month; Growth from $55 (minimum 5 users); Scale from $75 (minimum 10 users)AI Prefill: AI Prefill and the Smart Proposal Engine are on the Scale planAI assistants: AI assistant integration (MCP) lets you work in Qwilr inside Claude or ChatGPTReviews: 4.6 out of 5 from 938 G2 reviewsBilling: Growth and Scale are annual billing only
Qwilr makes interactive web proposals and quotes. Starter is from $35 per user a month, Growth from $55 (minimum 5 users) and Scale from $75 (minimum 10 users). AI Prefill and the Smart Proposal Engine are on Scale, and an AI assistant integration (MCP) lets you work in Qwilr inside Claude or ChatGPT. It has 4.6 out of 5 from 938 G2 reviews.
Go ifSales teams sending interactive web proposals and quotes
Skip ifYou answer long RFP questionnaires
Why #8 over #9: It puts AI prefill in a polished buyer page, beyond Proposify’s editor.
9
Proposify
Answrs VerdictThe easiest branded proposal builder with an AI writer.
Price: Build $49 per user a month billed monthly or $39 billed annually; Grow $65; Scale $107AI: Build includes AI and an MCP server; an embedded AI widget can prompt, write, refine, fix spelling and grammar, and condenseClaude: The MCP server connects Proposify to Claude to create and update documentsTrial: 14 day trial, no card neededScale fee: Scale has a platform fee of $12,800 a year that includes 10 users
Proposify’s Build plan is $49 per user a month billed monthly or $39 billed annually and includes AI and an MCP server. An embedded AI widget can prompt, write, refine, fix spelling and grammar, and condense, and the MCP server connects Proposify to Claude. Grow is $65 and Scale $107.
Go ifSmall sales teams that want an AI writing widget inside a branded proposal editor
Skip ifYou answer formal RFPs
Why #9 over #10: Its AI writing widget is built into the editor, while Better Proposals only offers an MCP connection.
10
Better Proposals
Answrs VerdictThe cheapest way to connect an AI agent to proposals.
Price: Starter $13 per month billed annually ($19 monthly); Premium $21 ($29); Enterprise $42 ($49), each per userAI: Premium adds an MCP Server for AI, so your AI agent can look up documents and create proposalsSend limits: Starter sends up to 10 documents a month; Premium up to 50; Enterprise unlimitedTrial: Free 14 day trial, no credit card requiredTemplates: Browse over 260 free document templates
Better Proposals is $13 per user a month billed annually ($19 monthly) on Starter, $21 ($29) on Premium and $42 ($49) on Enterprise. Premium adds an MCP Server for AI so your AI agent can look up documents and create proposals. Its pricing page does not describe a built-in AI writer.
Go ifFreelancers and small businesses sending signed, tracked proposals
Skip ifYou want an AI that writes the proposal inside the app
How we ranked these
We ranked tools on how much AI they use to draft and review proposals and RFP responses, using only what each maker publishes on its own site, then on published prices. PandaDoc, Microsoft Copilot, OpenAI ChatGPT, Anthropic Claude and Jasper from the old list were replaced: PandaDoc and the OpenAI and Microsoft pages could not be read, and Claude and Jasper’s own pricing pages do not describe proposal writing. Several claims here are the makers’ own, marked as such. Facts are taken from each maker's own published information; check the official site before you buy.
Questions people ask
What is the best AI tool for proposal writing?
Tenderbolt: it generates a tailored proposal from your own knowledge, runs Go/No-Go analysis in minutes and answers compliance questionnaires automatically. Pricing is not published.
Which AI proposal tools publish a price?
Qwilr (from $35 per user a month), Proposify (Build $49 monthly or $39 annually), Better Proposals (Starter $13 per month billed annually) and Responsive (Emerging Edition from $10,000).
Can I use Claude or ChatGPT with my proposal software?
Yes for some tools: Qwilr lets you work in Qwilr inside Claude or ChatGPT, Loopio connects to Claude and ChatGPT, and Proposify’s MCP server connects it to Claude.
Is my data safe with an AI proposal tool?
Arphie is SOC 2 Type 2 compliant with Zero Data Retention agreements, and Tenderbolt lists SOC 2 Type II, EU hosting and AES-256 encryption. Check each vendor’s terms before uploading.
Companies each maker says use its platform at a glance
AutogenAI270 companies
Tenderbolt500 companies
Loopio1,700 companies
Responsive2,000 companies
Companies each maker says use its platform, as published by each maker. Picks without a published figure are left off.
