Top 7 Responsive alternatives and competitors

Responsive (formerly RFPIO) is powerful. It is also heavy, expensive, and built for a world where a dedicated proposal team manages every moving part.

If you have that team, Responsive delivers. If you don't, or if your team is drowning in setup, training, and library maintenance, you are paying for infrastructure you cannot fully use.

The RFP software market has shifted. AI-native tools now handle what used to require a full-time administrator. They connect to your live knowledge, generate first drafts in minutes, and work inside the tools your team already uses.

This guide covers the top Responsive alternatives for 2026, built to scale your output without scaling your overhead.

The downsides of Responsive as an RFP response software

Responsive is the enterprise standard for a reason. But its architecture creates friction for teams that need speed over structure.

1. It is built for size, not speed: Responsive scales by adding structure, Gantt charts, SME assignments, approval workflows. For a lean sales team responding to a 50-question RFP, that structure is overhead, not help. Users frequently describe the interface as "click-heavy" and report that simple tasks require too many steps.

2. The library model still applies: Responsive relies on a curated content library. If no one is actively maintaining it, answers go stale, and AI suggestions degrade. The tool does not fix the maintenance problem, it just makes it more organized.

3. Steep learning curve: New hires typically need formal training to navigate the UI. Low adoption follows. When reps avoid the tool, the ROI disappears regardless of the license cost.

4. Implementation takes months: Responsive is not plug-and-play. Initial setup requires consultants, a structured onboarding process, and weeks of content migration before the platform delivers value. For teams in an active fiscal year, that runway is a problem.

5. It does not cover the full deal cycle: Responsive handles RFPs. It does not generate pre-call briefs, competitive battlecards, or deal-specific proposals. Your team still switches tools for every other content need in the deal cycle.

Responsive alternatives

Here are the top players that can replace the battleship, depending on whether you want a faster library or a totally new way of working.

1. SiftHub: #1 AI RFP Responsive alternative

Best for: Revenue teams looking to respond to more RFPs faster, without a dedicated proposal team or a content library to maintain.

SiftHub is the only Responsive alternative that removes the maintenance problem at its root. Responsive organizes your content library. SiftHub replaces it. Instead of asking your team to tag, update, and curate answers, SiftHub connects directly to your live data, Salesforce, Gong, Slack, Google Drive, and SharePoint, and synthesizes responses from existing content.

It also goes beyond RFPs. SiftHub automates deal briefs, battlecards, and sales collateral that Responsive does not touch. Teams handle 2x the RFP volume without adding headcount and go from intake to submission in days, not weeks.

How it scales capacity: No library maintenance means no admin overhead. Connect your data sources, and you are answering RFPs the same week.

Key features:

• RFPs: End-to-end automation, bid/no-bid analysis, 70–90% autofill from live sources, project orchestration, approval routing, and auto-generated cover letters. Works natively inside Word, Excel, Google Docs, and browser portals. No import/export.
• Deal brief builder: Auto-generates pre-call prep, stakeholder summaries, and handover documents from CRM data and call transcripts, triggered by real deal signals.
• Sales collateral builder: Creates deal-specific battlecards, POV decks, proposals, and SOWs from your CRM, Gong calls, and enablement content.
• Source attribution on every answer: Every response is traceable to its source. No hallucinations, no guesswork, audit-ready by default.

Pros:

• Operational in days, not months
• Works inside tools your team already uses, no portal switching
• Covers the full deal cycle, not just RFP Q&A
• SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and VAPT certified

Cons:

• Newer platform, shorter track record than Responsive or Loopio
• Fewer heavy governance features for highly regulated industries like defense or banking

2. Loopio

Loopio is often the first stop for teams leaving Responsive. It effectively solves the "usability" problem but keeps the same underlying "library" philosophy. It is built on the idea of a "Project," where you import an RFP, assign questions to experts, and use a curated library to auto-fill answers.

It is significantly easier to look at than Responsive. The interface is clean, modern, and colorful. Sales teams generally prefer it because it doesn't feel like an IT project. However, under the hood, it is still a database that requires manual care.

Pros:

• User experience (UX): It is genuinely easy to use. The learning curve is shallow, and your team can figure out the basics in an afternoon without deep training.
• Magic Loop: This is a clever feature that automates the "update" cycle. When a user answers a new question in a project, Loopio prompts them to add it to the library, helping keep the database relatively fresh (though it still relies on human action).
• Great support: Loopio has a reputation for being partner-focused, with a customer success team that is more hands-on than the giants.

Cons:

• The "library" burden remains: You are still buying a filing cabinet. If you stop manually reviewing and "cleaning" the Magic Loop suggestions, your library will become outdated, and the automation will fail.
• Limited "deep" AI: While they have added AI features, they are mostly "wrappers" around the library. It struggles to answer net-new questions that don't have a close match in the database.

Also, read about Loopio’s alternatives. 

3. QorusDocs

QorusDocs has carved out a very specific niche: teams that live and die by Microsoft Office. If your entire proposal process happens inside Microsoft Word and PowerPoint, and your content is stored exclusively in SharePoint, QorusDocs feels like a native extension of your workflow.

It doesn't try to be a standalone platform in the same way; instead, it embeds itself into the Office ribbon. This makes it invisible to users who just want to stay in their document, but it limits its power if you use other tools.

Pros:

• Native Microsoft integration: It is arguably the best sidebar experience for Word. You can drag and drop answers, case studies, and slides directly into your active document without ever leaving the window.
• SharePoint synergy: Since it uses SharePoint as its brain, you don't have to migrate data to a new server. It just reads what you already have in your Microsoft ecosystem.
• Lower cost of entry: Generally, it is more affordable than the enterprise suites like Responsive or Qvidian.

Cons:

• Blind outside of Microsoft: If your team uses Google Drive, Slack, or other modern collaboration tools, QorusDocs struggles. It is heavily tethered to the Microsoft stack.
• Weak collaboration features: It lacks the robust "project management" dashboard that Responsive has. Tracking who is doing what on a complex, multi-person bid can be messy.

4. PandaDoc

If Responsive is a warehouse, PandaDoc is a showroom. It is not designed for the grueling task of answering 500-question security spreadsheets. Instead, it is built for the final mile of the deal: sending a polished proposal, getting it signed, and collecting payment.

For teams whose "RFPs" are actually just standard proposals with a few custom variables, Responsive is overkill. PandaDoc strips away the complexity and focuses purely on document workflow and e-signature.

Pros:

• Speed to send: You can spin up a contract or proposal from a template in minutes. It connects to your CRM (Salesforce, HubSpot) to auto-fill client details, so reps don't make typo errors on the pricing page.
• Deal intelligence: It tells you exactly when a prospect opens the document and how long they spent looking at the pricing section. This "intent data" helps sales reps time their follow-up calls perfectly.
• Built-in eSignature: You don't need a separate DocuSign license. It handles the entire lifecycle from "draft" to "cash" in one tab.

Cons:

• Not an RFP tool: If you upload a complex Excel questionnaire, PandaDoc will choke. It lacks the "shredding" and auto-answering capabilities needed for heavy technical bids.
• Limited content governance: It’s great for templates, but it’s not a "knowledge engine." It doesn't easily index your past answers to help you write new ones.

5. Proposify

Proposify is similar to PandaDoc but with a heavier emphasis on aesthetics. If your brand plays a major role in winning the deal (e.g., creative agencies, marketing firms), Proposify allows you to lock down the design so sales reps can't "break the brand" with ugly fonts or stretched images.

It positions itself as the tool that stops sales reps from sending "Frankenstein" proposals.

Pros:

• Brand control: Marketing teams love it because they can create rigid templates. Sales reps can change the text and pricing, but they can't mess up the layout.
• Interactive fee tables: Instead of a static price, you can give clients "optional" line items they can select themselves (like upselling a support package), directly increasing the deal size inside the proposal.
• Rich media: It handles video and heavy imagery much better than legacy tools, allowing you to embed a case study video directly into the proposal.

Cons:

• Overkill for simple docs: If you just need to send a quick SOW, the heavy design interface can feel clunky.
• Zero automation for Q&A: Like PandaDoc, it offers no help for the "Q&A" part of an RFP. It is purely for the output document, not the input answers.

6. Qwilr

Qwilr takes a radical stance: PDFs are dead.

Instead of sending a static file that the client has to download, Qwilr lets you send a live, interactive web page (a microsite). It looks beautiful on mobile, plays videos instantly, and feels like a modern buying experience.

Pros:

• The "Wow" factor: In a sea of boring PDF attachments, a Qwilr link stands out. It looks like a custom landing page built just for that prospect.
• Mobile-first: If your champion is reading the proposal on their iPhone between meetings, Qwilr is the only tool on this list that provides a genuinely good reading experience.
• Analytics: Because it's a webpage, the tracking is granular. You can see which blocks they read and where they clicked.

Cons:

• Compliance nightmares: Some enterprise buyers (banks, government) require a PDF for their internal audit records. They literally cannot "upload a URL" into their procurement portal.
• Not for RFPs: This is strictly for proactive proposals. You cannot use Qwilr to answer a vendor security assessment.

7. XaitPorter

If you are selling to oil & gas, defense, or government, you likely aren't dealing with "proposals"; you are dealing with "tenders" that are 300 pages long and require strict compliance.

XaitPorter is a database-driven co-authoring tool. Unlike the others that are document-based, XaitPorter breaks the document into database chunks, allowing huge teams to work on the same massive file without crashing it.

Pros:

• Parallel co-authoring: Most tools say they allow collaboration; XaitPorter actually delivers it. You can have 50 people writing different sections of a 500-page document simultaneously without version conflict issues.
• Formatting automation: It separates content from layout. You write the text, and the system automatically formats it into the strict government standard required. No more fighting with Microsoft Word indentation at 2 AM.
• Security: It is built for sectors where security is paramount, with granular access controls that go deeper than most standard SaaS tools.

Cons:

• Steep learning curve: It is not intuitive. It feels like an industrial tool, not a consumer app. Your team will need training.
• Rigid workflow: It forces you to work its way. If you want to just "whip up a quick draft," XaitPorter will feel like wearing a straitjacket.

How to choose the right Responsive alternative for your team

The right alternative depends on why Responsive stopped working. Match your pain point to the tool.

Heavily regulated teams that need audit trails and multi-department workflows should evaluate Qvidian. It is the compliance-first choice, but expect a heavier system and a longer setup.

Teams sending SOWs, quotes, or short proposals should consider Proposify or PandaDoc. These solve a design problem; they will not auto-answer a complex RFP.

Revenue teams that want speed without overhead should choose SiftHub. It is the only alternative that removes the static library entirely and covers the full deal cycle on a single platform.

Conclusion on Responsive alternatives

Responsive built enterprise RFP management at scale. For large organizations with dedicated proposal teams and complex approval chains, it still delivers.

For everyone else, the costs of time, training, and maintenance outweigh the return.

The market has moved. AI-native tools now handle first drafts, answer synthesis, and deal with context without a full-time administrator feeding the machine. The question is no longer whether to automate; it is which tool automates the right things.

SiftHub is the answer for teams that want to close more deals, not manage more software. Connect your data, skip the library, and start responding faster from day one.

Ready to see the difference? Book a demo with SiftHub. 

Frequently asked questions (FAQs) about Responsive alternatives

1. Is there a free alternative to Responsive? 

For enterprise-grade RFP management, no. There are free proposal tools for freelancers (like basic versions of PandaDoc), but they cannot handle security questionnaires or content libraries. If cost is the primary driver, look for tools that don't charge per-seat "user licenses" for every SME you invite, a common hidden cost with Responsive.

2. Which Responsive alternative is best for Salesforce users? 

Almost all the major players (SiftHub, Loopio, and Proposify) integrate with Salesforce. However, the difference is depth. SiftHub allows you to answer questions directly inside the Salesforce Opportunity window via a sidebar, whereas others often just pull CRM fields into a document.

3. Can I migrate my data from Responsive to SiftHub easily? 

Yes. In fact, migration is often instant. Because SiftHub connects to your live repositories (Google Drive, SharePoint, etc.), you don't need to "export and import" massive CSV files to get started. SiftHub can ingest your historical RFPs and start answering new questions on Day 1.

4. Why is Responsive so expensive? 

Responsive prices itself as an enterprise platform. You are paying for the deep permission controls, the complex project management features, and the brand name. For many mid-market teams, you are paying for 500 features but only using 5, which is why "lighter" AI-native alternatives often show a better ROI.

5. Does SiftHub replace the need for a Proposal Manager? 

It doesn't replace the person; it replaces the grunt work. Your Proposal Manager currently spends 70% of their time on copy-paste mechanics and library cleanup. SiftHub automates that 70%, freeing them to focus on strategy, executive summaries, and tailoring the bid to win, the work humans are actually good at.