[emremm]

Glad our product resonates!

A couple points of differentiation:

1) First-shot completion: Our system typically gets 90%+ of the questionnaire completed with no user involvement. I don't think RFPIO (or other RFP-focused platforms) do that.

2) Guidance & Support: Some of the stickiest parts of RFPs are the questions that are either WTF? or that you answer "No" to and determining how to manage that. Does it actually matter that you don't have a WAF (depends on the rest of your architecture)? Does it actually matter that you're still using TLS 1.1 (probably want to change that)? Should you fix those things? RFP systems don't help with that; ours does (largely because we've put a human in the loop).

What I've heard from our customers using those systems is that RFP systems help (after you've spend time on curation) with ~30-60% of questions. If the questionnaire is 200 questions, that still leaves you with somewhere on the order of 100 questions to answer.

Ultimately, RFPIO provides a software tool only; we're providing a software-enabled service.

The time your team spends on questionnaires is reflected in that.

[joecasson]

Another tool that I've been happy with is Loopio. They do have the "Magic" capability that tries to automate answers. Given the consistent structure of security questions, they had a higher match / completion rate, but their UX was a little difficult to navigate. Again, software only solution, but something that might be interesting for comparisons.

[joetheone]

Loopio and RFP.io are direct competitors. They are both good tools, but are designed for RFP response in general and not security specific. RFPs do tend to have security sections, so there is some overlap for sure, but these guys by definition are focusing on a wider problem and don't dive as deep into security.

A number of our customers combine our service with loopio or rfp.io and we are perfectly fine with that.