This page compares two proposal platforms to each other. RFP Quest is not the subject of it, and the comparison does not conclude with us — if that is what you came for, the short version is at the bottom.
Every claim below comes from a page the vendor controls, and carries the date it was checked. Neither vendor is used as a source about the other: both publish competitor comparison pages, and a vendor's description of a rival is marketing, not evidence.
The short answer
AutogenAI leads with generative drafting. Its own material describes proposal-writing and management software built on generative AI and retrieval-augmented generation, aimed at producing a tailored first draft against evaluation criteria.
Responsive leads with response management. Its own account of its history is explicit: the platform began as RFPIO for RFPs, expanded to security questionnaires, DDQs and RFIs, and renamed to reflect "strategic response management" across all of them.
If your bottleneck is writing something persuasive from scratch, the first framing is closer to your problem. If your bottleneck is answering the same 400 questions across RFPs, DDQs and security questionnaires without losing control of the content, the second is.
What AutogenAI publishes about itself
- Proposal-writing and management software using generative AI and RAG, drafting against evaluation criteria and compliance requirements.
- 16 large language models routed dynamically by task, per its own blog.
- Gamma Review — pre-submission compliance scoring.
- Submission-ready exports to Word, PowerPoint and Adobe InDesign.
- A Research Assistant for procurement data and competitor positioning, plus segmented content libraries and CRM integrations.
- A UK public-sector practice, with published material on bidding under the Procurement Act 2023 and the most advantageous tender evaluation approach, addressed to SMEs and VCSEs as well as large corporates.
- Vendor claim, not verified: "a 30% increase in win rates, with a 70% reduction in time to first draft."
(All checked 2026-08-10.)
What Responsive publishes about itself
- All-in-one response platform for RFPs, RFIs, DDQs and security questionnaires, with AI writing agents for first drafts, workflow automation and a managed content library.
- Formerly RFPIO. The rename is documented on its own blog, as is the reasoning: the platform outgrew the RFP-only name.
- Acquired RFP360 in August 2021 and, separately, InHub — an RFP and due-diligence platform for financial services.
- Describes itself as trusted by "more than 2,000 of the world's best response teams."
- Three named editions — Emerging, Growth and Enterprise — with no published prices. Its pricing page carries an FAQ entry titled "Why doesn't Responsive publish exact prices?".
- Vendor claims, not verified: "20% increase in win rates", "40% reduction in response time", "80% of RFPs completed in seconds."
(All checked 2026-08-10.)
On those percentages
Both vendors publish win-rate and time-saving figures. Neither publishes the study, the sample, the baseline or the period behind them, and the two sets are not measured the same way — so 20% and 30% are not comparable numbers, and neither should be carried into a business case as though it were evidence.
That is not an accusation against either company; it is how this category markets itself. If a percentage matters to your decision, ask for the methodology in the sales conversation and treat the answer as the actual data point.
Where neither publishes enough
Neither vendor publishes a price. AutogenAI has no pricing page at all — autogenai.com/pricing returned 404 on 2026-08-10. Responsive publishes tier names without figures and explains in its own FAQ why it does not publish them.
The practical consequence is the same for both: you cannot compare them on cost without entering two sales processes, and you cannot budget for either in advance. If published pricing is a hard requirement for you, this pair is the wrong shortlist and you should be looking at tools that publish rate cards.
Choosing between them
- Count your response types. If RFPs are one of four or five formats you answer — DDQs, security questionnaires, RFIs — the breadth is the deciding factor, and Responsive's own positioning is built around exactly that spread.
- Ask where the words come from. A library-first tool is excellent when a good approved answer already exists and poor when the question is new. A drafting-first tool is the reverse. Your honest ratio of reused to newly written content decides this, and most teams over-estimate reuse.
- If you bid UK public sector, ask each directly about the Procurement Act. AutogenAI publishes UK Procurement Act material; whether Responsive's UK regime support is equivalent is not something we could establish from its own pages, so ask rather than assume in either direction.
- Get both prices before you evaluate features. Since neither is published, and the ranges in this category are wide, a feature shortlist built before pricing can collapse entirely once the numbers arrive.
What we could not verify
- Any pricing figure for either vendor. Not published by either as at 2026-08-10.
- Named security certifications for Responsive. Its pricing page links to a security page and a Trust Center but names no certification; we did not find one stated there.
- Whether Responsive publishes UK-specific procurement regime support. Not established from its own pages.
- The methodology behind either vendor's win-rate claim. Not published by either.
- User or customer counts on a comparable basis. Responsive states "more than 2,000 response teams"; AutogenAI publishes no equivalent figure, so the two cannot be set side by side.
Where RFP Quest fits, stated plainly
We are not a like-for-like alternative to either, and it would be dishonest to end this page pretending otherwise.
Both platforms are response and proposal tools: you bring the opportunity, they help you answer it. RFP Quest starts a step earlier — finding UK public-sector notices from Find a Tender and Contracts Finder, categorising them, extracting the requirements stated in the notice text, and then drafting section by section.
If you already have a healthy pipeline of UK tenders and your problem is purely the writing, these two are aimed at your problem and we are only partly. If you are not confident you are seeing the right opportunities in the first place, no drafting tool fixes that.
For the broader field, see our comparison of UK RFP software and the ranked best RFP software guide.