Responsive vs AutoRFP

TLDR: Responsive and AutoRFP are tools designed to help teams manage proposals and answer RFPs. Responsive is a larger company than the early stage AutoRFP startup. Both products follow similar manual workflows, with customer reviews reporting similar challenges around setup, maintenance, collaboration, and speed.

	Responsive	AutoRFP
1-liner	Proposal and RFP response management.	Manage RFP response library
Free Trial	No, there is no free trial offered by Responsive.	No
Self Service	No, Responsive sales team is involved in all PoV deployments	No, AutoRFP requires a sales-assisted setup that takes several days
Pricing	You must contact Responsive directly, speak with a sales person, and go through several steps before learning pricing. Annual plans only.	AutoRFP starts at $1,000 / month for only 24 projects per year.
Setup time	Days/Weeks	Days/Weeks
Answer Generation	Unlimited	Unlimited
Easy Knowledge Base Setup	❗ Requires you to set up a Q&A library using a rigid document structure	Requires users to manually highlight Q&A during import. Cannot crawl URLs automatically. Users must setup the library with the help of AutoRFP
Automated Questionnaire Answering	❗ Requires manual column mapping, document highlighting, and setup before generating answers.	Requires manual column mapping, document highlighting, and setup before generating answers.
Automated Knowledge Base Maintenance	Requires you to manually review and update your Q&A library.	⚠️ AutoRFP updates 3rd party knowledge every 24 hours but requires manual user oversight to approve knowledge updates.
3rd Party Chat Integrations	Integrates with CRM tools but lacks Chat Integrations for live Q&A	AutoRFP integrates with Slack and MS Teams but not Google Chat.
Easy to use UI	Complex UI with numerous project management features. Requires a time-consuming learning curve.	Complex, interface requiring significant manual oversight when uploading and answering documents.
Automate Web-based Questionnaires	No, questionnaires must be uploaded manually	Yes, AutoRFP has a browser extension
Live Chat Support	No, requires opening a ticket system and responds during business hours.	Yes, live chat support.
Excel Support	Yes	Yes
Word Doc Support	Yes	Yes
PDF Support	Yes	Yes
G2 Ratings	4.5/5	4.9/5
Gartner Ratings	4.2/5	4.8/5

Why users choose Responsive or AutoRFP

How do Responsive vs AutoRFP reviews compare

Responsive has over 1,200 verified reviews on G2 with an average rating around 4.5 out of 5, where reviewers often highlight its automation, content management, and collaboration features as key benefits. Users appreciate the platform’s ability to organize content, support team workflows, and streamline responses to complex questionnaires. Some reviewers also note a learning curve and occasional mismatches in answer relevance that require refinement. On Gartner Peer Insights, Responsive has a verified user rating of approximately 4.2 out of 5 from about 55 ratings, reflecting solid satisfaction with its core capabilities.

AutoRFP has fewer total reviews on G2 (around 56 reviews) but with a higher average rating near 4.9 out of 5, and G2 reviewers frequently cite major time savings, efficiency gains, and strong customer support as positives. Some users mention that the interface could be more intuitive or polished, even as they praise the product’s ability to generate initial drafts quickly. On Gartner Peer Insights, AutoRFP has about 17 verified ratings with an average rating near 4.8 out of 5, where users emphasize speed and automated draft generation as benefits.

In summary, Responsive reviews often emphasize automation and collaboration at scale, while AutoRFP reviews highlight efficiency and speed of draft generation. Both tools have strong user ratings, but they show different patterns in what buyers value most.

Why do teams choose Responsive or AutoRFP, and how do they compare?

Responsive and AutoRFP are both used to manage RFPs, but teams tend to choose between them based on scale, structure, and workflow needs.

Responsive is often selected by larger organizations that need enterprise level features. It offers advanced workflows, permissions, integrations, and reporting, which helps teams manage complex review cycles and large volumes of proposals, though it can require more setup and ongoing administration.

AutoRFP is typically chosen by teams that want strong process control without the same level of enterprise complexity. It focuses on structured content libraries, approvals, and consistency, making it a good fit for organizations with defined processes that do not need the full breadth of Responsive’s integrations and analytics.

In general, teams choose Responsive for scale and advanced governance, while AutoRFP appeals to teams looking for structured RFP management with slightly less overhead.

How do Responsive and AutoRFP handle web portal questionnaires that can’t be downloaded?

Responsive and AutoRFP both support working with web portal questionnaires, but neither fully eliminates manual steps when the questionnaire cannot be downloaded.

With Responsive, teams typically copy questions from the web portal into the platform, generate or reuse answers using the content library and workflows, then manually enter responses back into the website.

Responsive’s review and approval tools help manage quality, but the data transfer remains manual.AutoRFP follows a similar approach. Users bring questions into AutoRFP to draft responses using structured content and approvals, then paste the final answers back into the portal. Its focus on process and consistency helps with accuracy, but it does not automate direct web form completion.

Overall, both Responsive and AutoRFP rely on manual copy and paste for non downloadable web questionnaires, using their platforms mainly for drafting, reuse, and review.

Do Responsive or AutoRFP require manual column mapping or a rigid Q&A library setup?

Responsive and AutoRFP both depend on structured content to enable answer reuse, which usually means some level of manual setup.

Responsive often requires detailed configuration, including tagging, fields, and permissions within its Q&A library. This structure supports advanced workflows and governance, but it can feel rigid and time consuming to set up and maintain, especially for large teams.

AutoRFP also relies on a structured Q&A library, though it is generally lighter than Responsive’s. Teams still need to organize content and map answers so reuse works correctly, but the setup is typically less complex and easier to manage over time.

In short, both tools involve manual library setup, with Responsive leaning toward more rigid, enterprise level structure and AutoRFP offering a more streamlined approach.

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

Responsive and AutoRFP both offer centralized places to manage RFP knowledge, but they are built for different types of teams.

Responsive’s knowledge base is designed for enterprise scale. It supports detailed metadata, permissions, workflows, and analytics, which helps large organizations manage complex review processes and maintain consistency across many contributors. Teams use it when governance, reporting, and control are top priorities.

AutoRFP’s content library focuses more on structured reuse with less complexity. Teams store approved answers and use them across RFPs to stay consistent and efficient, without needing as much configuration or administration. It works well for teams that want clear process and reliability without enterprise level overhead.

Overall, teams choose Responsive for deep control and scalability, and AutoRFP for simpler, structured content management that is easier to maintain.

Why Teams Choose 1up over Responsive and AutoRFP

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.