AutoRFP vs Arphie

TLDR: AutoRFP and Arphie are both tools designed to help teams respond to RFPs and manage proposal content. While they approach the problem differently, users report similar challenges around manual document mapping and response times.

	AutoRFP	Arphie
1-liner	Manage RFP response library	Manage RFP response library
Free Trial	No	No
Self Service	No, AutoRFP requires a sales-assisted setup that takes several days	No, Arphie requires a sales-assisted setup that takes several days
Pricing	AutoRFP starts at $1,000 / month for only 24 projects per year.	Priced higher with discounted plans available for multi-year contracts
Setup time	Days/Weeks	Days/Weeks
Answer Generation	Unlimited	Unlimited
Easy Knowledge Base Setup	Requires users to manually highlight Q&A during import. Cannot crawl URLs automatically.	Does not crawl full websites automatically. Requires assisted setup.
Automated Questionnaire Answering	AutoRFP requires complex column mapping, highlighting, and setup before answers are generated.	Arphie requires manual column mapping, document highlighting, and setup before generating answers. Does not support web-based questionnaires.
Automated Knowledge Base Maintenance	AutoRFP updates 3rd party knowledge every 24 hours and requires manual user oversight to approve knowledge updates.	Arphie supports integrations such as Google Drive and Confluence.
3rd Party Chat Integrations	AutoRFP integrates with Slack and MS Teams but not Google Chat.	Arphie does not have a public integration with Microsoft Teams or Google Chat.
Easy to use UI	Complex, confusing interface requiring significant manual oversight when uploading and answering documents.	Complex, confusing interface requiring manual oversight when uploading questionnaires.
Automate Web-based Questionnaires	Yes, AutoRFP has a browser extension	No, Arphie does not have a browser extension and cannot answer web portal based questionnaires
Live Chat Support	Yes, live chat support.	No live chat support (email only).
Excel Support	Yes	Yes
Word Doc Support	Yes	No
PDF Support	Yes	No
G2 Ratings	4.9/5	4.9/5
Gartner Ratings	4.8/5	5/5

Why users choose AutoRFP or Arphie

How do AutoRFP vs Arphie reviews compare?

AutoRFP has 56 verified reviews on G2 with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5, where reviewers often emphasize significant time savings, improved efficiency in RFP responses, and responsive customer support. Users consistently mention that AI-driven draft generation and intelligent reuse of past answers can dramatically reduce manual work, although some note that the interface and navigation can present a learning curve. On Gartner Peer Insights, AutoRFP has around 17 verified ratings with a high overall score near 4.8 out of 5, where reviewers appreciate how the tool accelerates response cycle time and supports collaborative workflows.

Arphie has 16 verified user reviews on G2 with a rating around 5.0 out of 5, praising its intuitive interface, time-saving automation, seamless integrations, and strong team collaboration features. Common themes in Arphie reviews include how easily teams can onboard, how much time is saved on web-based and document-driven responses, and the quality and accuracy of AI-generated answers. Some reviewers mention minor limitations like export options or reporting capabilities. On Gartner Peer Insights, Arphie has around 5 verified ratings with an overall rating of 5.0, reflecting very high satisfaction among verified enterprise users.

In summary, both AutoRFP and Arphie have strong, high-rating review profiles, with AutoRFP reviewers emphasizing efficiency and draft automation, and Arphie reviewers highlighting intuitive usability and seamless workflow support. This pattern reflects different user priorities and can help teams decide based on what aspect of RFP automation matters most for them.

Why do people choose AutoRFP or Arphie?

People usually choose between AutoRFP and Arphie based on how much control versus automation they want in their RFP process.

AutoRFP is often picked by teams that want a more structured, rules driven approach. It focuses on workflows, content libraries, and approvals, which works well for organizations with complex processes and strict compliance needs, though setup and maintenance can take time.

Arphie tends to appeal to teams looking for a lighter, AI first experience. It emphasizes speed and ease of use, helping users draft and respond faster with less upfront configuration, but may offer less depth for highly customized or regulated workflows.

In short, AutoRFP fits teams that prioritize process and governance, while Arphie suits teams that want faster answers with minimal setup.

How do AutoRFP and Arphie handle web portal questionnaires?

AutoRFP and Arphie take different approaches to handling web portal questionnaires.

AutoRFP typically relies on structured workflows and content libraries. Users often copy questions from a portal into the platform, generate responses using existing content, then paste answers back into the portal. This works well for consistency and compliance, but can be manual and time consuming for large or complex portals.

Arphie focuses more on AI assisted drafting. Teams usually upload or paste portal questions and let the AI generate answers quickly based on prior content or documents. This can speed up response creation, though users may still need to review carefully and handle formatting or submission manually in the portal.

In general, AutoRFP emphasizes control and process, while Arphie prioritizes speed and ease when working with web based questionnaires.

Do AutoRFP or Arphie require manual column mapping or rigid library setup?

AutoRFP and Arphie differ quite a bit when it comes to setup and structure.

AutoRFP generally relies on defined content libraries, fields, and mappings to work effectively. Teams often need to spend time organizing answers, tagging content, and maintaining structured libraries so responses stay consistent. This can involve manual setup and ongoing upkeep, especially as content changes.

Arphie is more flexible and typically requires less upfront configuration. It leans on AI to pull from documents and past responses without strict column mapping or rigid library structures. That makes it quicker to get started, though it may offer less control for teams that need highly standardized content.

Overall, AutoRFP favors structure and governance, while Arphie prioritizes speed and lower setup effort.

What is AutoRFP’s content library compared to Arphie’s knowledge approach, and why do teams use each?

AutoRFP and Arphie manage knowledge in different ways, which shapes how teams use them.

AutoRFP uses a centralized content library where approved answers are stored, categorized, and reused across RFPs. Teams rely on this library to ensure consistency, accuracy, and compliance, especially when multiple reviewers or strict approval processes are involved. It works best for organizations that want a single source of truth and repeatable responses.

Arphie takes a more flexible, AI driven approach. Instead of a rigid library, it pulls knowledge from documents, past proposals, and other materials to generate answers on the fly. Teams use this to move faster with less maintenance, though responses may require more review to ensure consistency and alignment.

In practice, teams choose AutoRFP for control and governance, and Arphie for speed and simplicity when managing RFP knowledge.

Why Teams Choose 1up over AutoRFP and Arphie

95%
Faster questionnaire completion. WalkMe and JumpCloud slashed response time after implementing 1up.
2x
Faster questionnaire automation without the need for manual column mapping.
100%
Support for file types including Excel, Word, PDF, and even Web Portal based questionnaires.

How Jumpcloud Doubled Questionnaire Completion Rates with 1up

The IAM leader faced an overload of complex security questionnaires. Learn how JumpCloud doubled completion rates and turned them around in minutes by switching to 1up.

Read Their Story