Top 7 Responsive alternatives and competitors

The fact that you are searching for "Responsive alternatives" tells a specific story.

It likely means you have already experienced the "battleship." You know that Responsive (formerly RFPIO) is massive. It is the undeniable giant of the industry, packed with every feature, button, and permission setting a Fortune 100 IT director could ever dream of.

But you have also realized that power comes with a price.

Maybe you are tired of the "admin tax", the reality that you need a full-time dedicated administrator just to keep the library from turning into chaos. Maybe you are seeing your sales reps bypass the tool entirely because the interface feels like an airplane cockpit, and they just want a simple answer. Or maybe you are realizing that in the age of AI, manually tagging and curating static content feels like a job that should no longer exist.

You aren't looking for an alternative because Responsive is a "bad" tool. It isn't. It’s excellent at what it was built for: control.

But you aren't looking for more control. You are looking for velocity.

You want a tool that your team actually adopts. You want answers that don't require weeks of "library grooming." You are looking for the next evolution of RFP software, one that moves as fast as your revenue goals.

In this guide, we are going to look past the G2 badges and feature checklists. We will break down the top alternatives to Responsive based on how they actually function in the real world, from the "legacy librarians" to the new wave of "AI teammates."

Let’s find the right fit for your team.

The downsides of Responsive as an RFP response software

Responsive (formerly RFPIO) is powerful, heavy, and built for war. If you are a full-time proposal manager at a Fortune 500 company, you might love it because it gives you buttons for everything.

But for most revenue teams, that weight is exactly the problem. Here is why leaders are looking for an off-ramp:

• The "admin tax" is real: Responsive is not a "set it and forget it" tool. It is a beast that demands to be fed. To keep it running, you often need a dedicated administrator (or a team of them) whose entire job is managing the library, expiring content, and retraining the AI. If you don't pay this tax, the system fills up with junk data, and your "automation" becomes a liability.
• The "cockpit" interface scares off sales: The user interface is dense. It looks like enterprise software from a decade ago, packed with menus, sub-menus, and complex permission trees. For a sales rep who just wants to grab a security answer and get back to selling, it feels like friction. The result? They stop using it and go back to emailing you.
• It’s a "static library" in an AI world: At its core, Responsive is still a database of Q&A pairs. It relies on you to manually curate the past to answer the future. In an era where AI can read your live documents and reason like a human, maintaining a static library feels like buying a better filing cabinet when you could have hired a digital assistant.

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: The "AI Teammate" (Agentic AI)

If Responsive is the "old guard" of manual libraries, SiftHub is the disruption. It is not built to help you manage a database; it is built to kill the need for one.

SiftHub uses "Agentic AI", a more advanced form of artificial intelligence that doesn't just match keywords but reasons through problems. Instead of forcing you to upload Q&A pairs into a silo, it connects to where your company’s knowledge actually lives: Google Drive, SharePoint, Slack, and Salesforce. It acts like a super-smart Solution Engineer that reads everything, understands context, and writes a fresh, accurate answer instantly.

Pros:

• Zero "library grooming": This is the biggest differentiator. You don't have to hire someone to tag and clean a library. SiftHub indexes your live documents, so when you update a product spec in Drive, SiftHub knows about it immediately.
• True "Agentic" reasoning: It doesn't just copy-paste. If a question asks, "Do you support SSO?" it will read your technical documentation and write a specific answer for that client, citing the source file so you can trust it.
• Adoption is automatic: It lives in the browser, Slack, and Microsoft Teams. Your sales reps don't have to log into a portal; they just ask the "teammate" a question right where they are working.

Cons:

• Paradigm shift: It requires a mental shift. You have to get comfortable with the idea that you don't need a "perfect" static library anymore because the AI builds the answer live from your real-time data.

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

You don't need another feature matrix with 50 checkboxes. You need to look at your "DNA" as a sales organization.

Most buyers regret their software choice, not because the tool is bad, but because it fights against their team's natural workflow.

We recommend evaluating your choice based on these three "Revenue Personalities." Find which bucket you fall into, and the right tool will become obvious.

1. The "document-heavy" teams

Who you are:

• You sell to government, defense, or highly regulated industries (oil & gas, construction).
• Your "proposals" are actually 300+ page tenders that require strict compliance and formatting.
• You have a dedicated proposal team of 5+ people who are strictly operational (not sales-facing).

The Verdict: If this is you, XaitPorter is likely your strongest alternative. It handles the "industrial scale" co-authoring that breaks lighter tools. Responsive is also built for this, but XaitPorter offers superior database-driven formatting for massive documents.

2. The "Microsoft loyalists"

Who you are:

• Your entire company runs on SharePoint, OneDrive, and Outlook.
• Your Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) refuse to log into "another portal" and will only review documents if they are in Word.
• You are okay with a tool that acts as a sidebar plugin rather than a central intelligence brain.

The Verdict: Look at QorusDocs. It accepts that Microsoft is your operating system and quietly plugs into it. It won't give you the advanced "Agentic" reasoning of modern AI, but it will get the highest adoption from stubborn SMEs who refuse to leave Word.

3. The "velocity" teams (modern B2B)

Who you are:

• You are a B2B SaaS, Technology, or Services company.
• Speed is your currency. You need to turn around security questionnaires (VSQs) and RFPs in hours, not weeks.
• You are tired of "maintenance days" where you have to clean up old tags in a library.
• You want your sales reps to be self-sufficient so they stop pinging the Solutions Engineering team for basic answers.

The Verdict: SiftHub is the only logical choice here.

Why? Because it is the only platform that replaces the "static database" model with an "AI Teammate."

While Responsive asks you to build a library, SiftHub asks you to connect your data. It links to your existing Drive, Slack, and Salesforce, indexing your live knowledge to answer questions automatically. It eliminates the "admin tax" of legacy software and gives you the one thing Responsive can't: zero-setup velocity.

Conclusion: Stop buying better filing cabinets

For the last decade, the RFP software market has been selling you the same solution: a digital filing cabinet.

Tools like Responsive and Loopio are excellent filing cabinets. They are sturdy, they have lots of drawers (features), and if you hire a full-time librarian to organize them, they work well.

But the problem isn't the cabinet. The problem is the filing.

Every hour your team spends tagging answers, expiring old content, and manually searching for "that one slide from the Q3 deck" is an hour stolen from revenue-generating activities.

SiftHub represents the end of the filing cabinet era.

We built SiftHub because we believe you shouldn't have to organize your knowledge to use it. You should be able to ask a question and get an answer that is:

1. Grounded in your company's live data (Drive, Slack, Salesforce).
2. Verified with citations you can trust.
3. Delivered instantly, right where your team is working.

You can swap Responsive for another legacy tool, and you will likely trade one set of frustrations for another. Or, you can upgrade to an AI Teammate that clears the path for your sales team to win.

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.