If you are looking for a Stotles alternative, the useful question is not which platform is better in the abstract. It is which one matches the portals you sell into, the stage of the bid you actually need help with, and the budget you can approve without a procurement exercise of your own.
This page compares Stotles and RFP Quest on published facts only. Every claim about Stotles comes from a page Stotles controls, and carries the date it was checked. Nothing here is drawn from a review site or a comparison blog.
What Stotles publishes about itself
Stotles describes itself as a business-to-government platform covering the commercial process from finding an opportunity through to drafting a bid.
On its data page, Stotles states that it aggregates from 100+ procurement portals across the UK and Ireland, naming Contracts Finder, Find a Tender, TED, Public Contracts Scotland, Sell2Wales, eTendersNI and the Digital Marketplace among them, alongside buyer-specific portals run by councils, NHS trusts and universities. The same page states the data is updated every two hours, and gives corpus figures of 8M+ procurement notices and awards and 15K+ government buyers. It also states that Stotles is SOC 2 Type II certified, with single sign-on and MFA available. (Checked 2026-08-10.)
Its home page lists integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot, Microsoft Teams, SharePoint, Google Drive and Slack. (Checked 2026-08-10.)
What RFP Quest publishes about itself
RFP Quest ingests Find a Tender and Contracts Finder via OCDS, under the Open Government Licence v3.0. That is two official UK sources — not an aggregation of a hundred portals, and we should not be read as claiming otherwise.
Our category taxonomy — the vocabulary behind matching and the category pages — covers CPV divisions 48 and 72 only: software and IT services. Outside those divisions, tenders are still searchable, but they are not categorised by that taxonomy.
RFP Quest is in early access and does not publish a price list.
The comparison
The table below uses the same criteria rows as every other page in this cluster, so the pages stay consistent with one another.
When Stotles is the better choice
A comparison with no losing row is not a comparison. There are at least three situations where Stotles is the right answer and RFP Quest is not, and they are not edge cases.
You sell into the devolved administrations. Stotles names Public Contracts Scotland, Sell2Wales and eTendersNI among its sources. RFP Quest ingests Find a Tender and Contracts Finder only. A Scottish contract published solely to Public Contracts Scotland, or a Welsh one published solely to Sell2Wales, will appear in Stotles and will not appear in RFP Quest. If a material share of your pipeline is devolved, that difference decides it on its own — no feature on our side compensates for a notice we never ingested.
You need the pipeline inside your CRM. Stotles publishes Salesforce and HubSpot integrations. RFP Quest publishes no CRM integration. If your commercial process runs through Salesforce and opportunities have to land there automatically, that is a workflow requirement we do not currently meet.
Your buyer's security review asks for a named certification. Stotles states SOC 2 Type II certification, SSO and MFA on its data page. RFP Quest publishes no security certification. Where a procurement or InfoSec review requires a named attestation before a tool can be adopted, that requirement is met by Stotles and is not met by us today.
Where the two genuinely differ
Beyond the cases above, the honest distinction is one of breadth against depth of source. Stotles' proposition is coverage — a hundred-plus portals aggregated and enriched into one feed. RFP Quest works from the two official OCDS sources and puts its effort into what happens after the notice: categorisation, requirement extraction, forward windows and bid drafting against a structured corpus.
Neither of those is the better design in general. They are answers to different questions. If your problem is "I do not know what is out there", breadth wins. If your problem is "I can see the notices and still cannot tell which ones I can win", depth is the one to test.
What we could not verify
In keeping with the rest of this cluster, here is what we could not establish from Stotles' own pages.
- A single price for the "Basic" plan. On 2026-08-10, stotles.com/pricing published three different figures for a plan called Basic in three sections of the same page — From £75 / month, From £50 / month and from £99 / month. We are not able to say which is current, so we quote none of them. The Free tier (£0) and the Growth tier (From £475 / month) were stated consistently, and Expert is listed as custom pricing.
- Whether the 100+ portal figure includes portals behind registration. The data page names the sources but does not state which require an account.
- Contractual terms, notice period or minimum commitment. Not published on the pricing page as at 2026-08-10.
Where a vendor does not publish something, the honest cell is "not documented", not an inference. We would rather leave a gap on this page than fill it with a guess about somebody else's product.
How to choose between them
Three checks, in order, and all three are things you can do before you talk to either company.
- Take last quarter's won and lost bids and ask which portal each notice was published on. If more than a handful came from anywhere other than Find a Tender or Contracts Finder, coverage is your binding constraint and you should be looking at an aggregator.
- Decide which half of the problem you are buying for. Finding opportunities and writing bids are different jobs. Buying a discovery tool because your win rate is poor is a common and expensive mis-diagnosis.
- Ask both for the thing you cannot get from a demo — a list of notices in your CPV codes from the last 30 days. Coverage claims are checkable against a portal you already use.
If you want to look at the wider field rather than these two, our comparison of UK RFP software sets out the feature matrix, and the best RFP software guide gives a ranked view.