Free tool, no signup, runs in your browser
Your security lead does not need a licence to answer one question.
Legal, security, sales engineering and finance are the people who actually hold your RFP answers. Count how many of them your current tool makes you license, or move a whole account tier for, before they can type a single sentence.
Takes about a minute. We keep the figures you type so we can count how many people ran it, and nothing else.
Seat tax, sample firm: 51 to 200 people, 12 bids a year
14 answer-holders. 14 of them need a seat or a tier upgrade.
- RFP.ai9 gated€129 a month at Professional
- DeepRFP14 gated$1,246 a month at Pro
- Loopio4 gatedPrice not published
- Responsive14 gatedPrice not published
- AnyOne Answers0 gated$179 a month, account
Figures for the sample firm. Every vendor line carries the page it was read on and the date it was read.
What the seat gate actually costs you
Not the invoice. The invoice is the small half. What it costs is that the step your response process depends on, the expert actually answering, gets routed around.
The answer goes into Slack
A reviewer on a public review site describes exactly this: collaboration through guest accounts is unreliable, there is no way to tell whether the question was even seen, and the team falls back to Slack. Paraphrased, not quoted, from a Capterra review dated 2026-04-28.
The feature never gets rolled out
A senior proposal support manager at a large software vendor reports that the full project functionality was never rolled out, because subject-matter experts need a licence to contribute and not everyone has those privileges. Paraphrased from a TrustRadius vetted review.
The answer arrives with nobody's name on it
When the expert answers in a chat thread, the corpus never learns. The next bid asks the same question and somebody pastes the same message again, with no attribution and no date on the answer.
Honest about the evidence: the two reviews above come from venues where reviews are often solicited by the vendor, and we have not spoken to their authors. They are why we think this is worth testing, not proof that it is.
What the calculator gives you
- The number of people at your firm who need a paid seat, or a tier upgrade, to answer one RFP question directly.
- That number tool by tool, with each vendor’s own entitlement structure applied to your headcount.
- The published monthly price for the tier your headcount lands on, in the currency the vendor publishes it in.
- A plain statement of "price not published" where a vendor does not publish one, instead of an invented estimate.
- Your total answer requests a year, which is the number of times somebody has to be chased.
And what it does not give you
- A quote for Loopio or Responsive. Neither publishes tier prices, so neither can be priced from a public page and we do not pretend otherwise.
- One combined currency figure. Vendors publish in euros and dollars, and adding them up would need an exchange rate we would have to make up.
- A product. AnyOne Answers is not built. This page exists to find out whether the problem is worth building for.
How AnyOne Answers would work
01
The question goes out as a link
The proposal owner sends one question to the person who holds the answer. No invitation, no account, no seat.
02
They answer where they are
The link opens one question and a box. It takes the expert the same two minutes the Slack message would have taken.
03
The answer lands in the corpus
With their name and the date on it, so the next bid can reuse it and the reviewer can see who said it and when.
04
The file goes back out
The completed response is written back into the client’s own document, structure intact, ready to send.
Steps 1 to 4 describe the product we would build. Today only the calculator on this page exists, and it is free.
Why we think this is the sharp thing
The claim is narrow on purpose, because the wide version is false and we checked. Several tools in this category do drop per-seat pricing: RocketDocs, Steerlab, Inventive.ai and AutoRFP.ai all do, at some tier. RFP.ai does too, and it is genuinely self-serve at €49 a month with a card and no demo call.
The surviving claim, which is the only one this page makes: no tool in this category decouples the number of people who can answer one question from the account tier the firm pays for, at a price a firm bidding one to fifteen times a year would pay.
RFP.ai caps named users per tier: five at €49, fifteen at €129, unlimited at €449, read on their pricing page on 2026-08-24. So a sixth expert does not cost a marginal seat fee, it moves the whole account up a tier. DeepRFP charges per user from $89 a month, so the cost of asking one more person scales linearly with no ceiling. Loopio states ten included seats on its Foundations tier and publishes no tier price at all, read 2026-08-20.
And a fact that argues against a lazy version of our own story: RFP.ai sells one-time credit packs at €39 and €99 that fit exactly the one-to-three-bids-a-year volume this page is about. Somebody is already selling into this segment successfully, and we are not going to pretend to you that nobody is.
What people said, in their own words
These are not our customers and not testimonials. They are public posts by people doing this work, quoted verbatim, found while researching whether this problem is real. Nobody was asked to say any of it and no usernames are reproduced.
“We use Loopio, it's 'fine' but pricey. Anyone seen any self hosting alternatives that are open source too?”
“RFPs are eating our week. We're looking for AI RFP software that reps and SEs can use quickly without a heavy rollout.”
“SE at a B2B SaaS company, and a good chunk of our role involves completing RFPs + security questionnaires ... I've already done demos with Responsive and Loopio and these are not it”
Who is behind this
Dario Verghi, working alone at LeanAI Studio. I am not a proposal manager and I have never run a bid desk, so I am not going to tell you I know your job.
What I do is run a small studio that tests one idea at a time in the open. I read public reviews and forum threads about RFP tools, found the same complaint in three separate venues, and wrote down in advance what result would make me build this and what result would make me drop it. The bar was set before the first message went out and it is not moving now.
If this test fails I will say so on this page rather than quietly leaving it up. You can write to me directly at dario@leanaistudio.com.
Straight answers
- Can I buy this today?
- No. The product does not exist yet. The calculator on this page is the whole of what is built, and the $179 a month is the price it would carry if it gets built.
- Do I have to sign up to use the calculator?
- No. There is no account, no email field and no cookie in the way. Press the button and the result is on screen.
- What do you keep when I use it?
- The figures you typed: your team names, headcounts and frequencies, plus the reference in the link if you arrived from a message we sent. Not your IP address, not a fingerprint, not your email unless you type it into the waitlist form.
- Are your vendor numbers current?
- Each one carries the page it was read on and the date it was read, both on screen and in the result. Prices move. If one of these is out of date, tell us and we will correct it with the new access date beside it.
- Is this better than Loopio or Responsive at writing answers?
- That is not a claim we make anywhere, and we deliberately do not compete on draft quality. The argument here is about who is allowed to touch the tool at all.
- What would you actually build first?
- The no-seat answer link and the write-back into your own response document. Everything else waits, and if this test does not clear the bar, none of it gets built.