What I like most about AutogenAI is the control it gives me over the information it uses. I can pull answers from a specific library, webpage, or my own uploaded files, which makes the output much more reliable and relevant. This is especially useful when working on proposals where accuracy is critical. The “Ask AI” feature is something I use often—it consistently gives useful responses based on my prompts and helps me move forward quickly when I’m stuck.

From a workflow perspective, it has made a noticeable difference. Creating the first draft of proposals is usually time-consuming, but AutogenAI speeds this up significantly. It also helps me analyze RFx documents more efficiently, saving me a lot of manual effort.

In terms of UI/UX, the platform is quite intuitive. It doesn’t take long to get used to, and navigating between features like Ask AI, document analysis, and content generation feels smooth. The layout is clean and practical, which makes day-to-day use easy.

Performance-wise, I’ve found it to be reliable. The responses are generally quick and relevant, and I haven’t faced any major issues while using it regularly.

On integrations, while I mainly use it with internal libraries and uploaded documents, that capability itself is very powerful. Being able to centralize and reference trusted content sources adds a lot of value.

Pricing and ROI-wise, the time it saves on drafting and analysis definitely justifies the investment. It reduces the effort needed for repetitive tasks and allows me to focus more on refining content rather than starting from scratch.

Support and onboarding have been excellent. The onboarding process was smooth, and the training sessions were genuinely helpful. Sean and the Autogen team were very supportive and made sure everything was clearly explained and easy to set up.

Overall, the AI capabilities are strong and practical—not just generic outputs but context-aware responses based on trusted inputs. It’s a very valuable tool in my day-to-day work, especially for proposal drafting and RFx evaluation. I’d confidently rate it a 10/10 and would definitely recommend it. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

One area where AutogenAI could improve is expanding beyond text-based outputs. For example, having the ability to create simple graphics, visuals, or charts directly within the platform would be very useful. Right now, I need to rely on other tools for this, which breaks the workflow and adds extra steps.

Collaboration is another area with room for improvement. While the current functionality works, it can feel a bit limited when multiple users are contributing to the same document. More seamless collaboration—such as easier sharing, clearer version control, or real-time editing—would make teamwork much more efficient, especially for proposal development.

From a usability standpoint, the UI is generally clean, but managing multiple documents or switching between tasks can sometimes feel a bit less intuitive than it could be. Streamlining navigation and improving how content is organized would save time during daily use.

In terms of integrations, the ability to use internal libraries is strong, but deeper integrations with commonly used tools (like document management or collaboration platforms) would help reduce manual effort and improve overall efficiency.

Performance is mostly reliable, though there is occasional lag when working with larger or more complex documents. Improving responsiveness in these scenarios would make a noticeable difference.

Overall, these aren’t major issues, but addressing them would significantly enhance the user experience and make the platform even more powerful for day-to-day work. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I really like the Research feature in the Home section of AutogenAI, as it provides access to market insights, and reference materials. The Ask AI feature is another favorite because it gives guidance in creating bespoke content. I'm also a fan of the Smart Requirements Workflow, which helps with outlining, summarizing, and making project setups easier and more simplified. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I dislike that AutogenAI lacks suggested prompts or guided recommendations, and the output could be easier to read for example- in tabular/easy to read format instead of long paragraphs. The interface can feel complex for users who are not tech-savvy. Sometimes, you do not get the exact information from specified URLs in the web search. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The tool feels comprehensive overall, especially in terms of its AgenticAI capabilities. Many functionality and features for user. Comprehensive output generation in a fast manner (if run performs). Trainer was very responsive and supportive during sessions Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Again, users sometimes run into performance issues. Navigating the site from Home to Project to My Draft took a little while to understand and fully comprehend. Practical training will eliminate most of the uncertainty. What still remains challenging is assigning particular documents to particular analyses, such as assigning a Word template from a client—with a specific response structure—within Outline generation, so the system knows which template to follow. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Ideator - great for storyboarding, something which seems very obvious but it's very easy to miss crucial requirements while focusing on something else.

Expand - great for when you have to do a deep dive on a specific subject and English is not your first language

Evidence - perfect for responses with tight word limit - you can get the essence of your example without losing the most effective bits Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I would like the search feature to go through my previous sessions, so I can easily find something that I already asked about - which will minimize the amount of AI queries and therefore minimize the enviromental impact. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I like best about AutogenAI is that it genuinely supports the bid writing process rather than feeling like a generic AI tool. It is particularly useful when working with large volumes of tender information, technical input and strict response requirements, as it helps turn complex content into clear, structured and client-focused responses.

From a day-to-day user perspective, the interface is straightforward and easy to navigate. The workflow feels logical, which is important in a bid environment where time is often limited and users need to move quickly between prompts, drafts and refinements. It helps reduce the time spent starting from a blank page and gives a strong first draft that can then be shaped with project-specific detail, evidence and commercial insight.

The AI capability is valuable because it helps improve structure, clarity and consistency. For example, when developing responses around mobilisation, compliance, innovation, asset management or service delivery, it can help frame the answer properly, reduce duplication and keep the response aligned to the question. It is also useful for tightening wording where there are strict word or page limits.

From a performance and ROI perspective, the main benefit is time saving. It speeds up early drafting, helps organise content more efficiently and allows more time to be spent on adding quality, evidence and client-specific detail. That is where the value comes from, because it supports both productivity and response quality.

The onboarding and support have also been helpful, particularly in understanding how to get the best out of the tool rather than just using it for basic drafting. An unexpected benefit is that it can challenge the way a response is written by highlighting where the message could be clearer, more concise or more benefit-led. Overall, it has improved my workflow by making tender response development quicker, more consistent and easier to manage. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I dislike about AutogenAI is not so much a major issue with the platform, but more that it still requires careful review and human judgment to get the best outcome. The first draft can be useful, but it sometimes needs significant tailoring to make sure the response is fully aligned to the client’s question, the evaluation criteria and the specific operational solution being proposed.

At times, the wording can feel slightly generic if the right information is not provided upfront. In a tender environment, this means the user still needs to add contract-specific evidence, case studies, commercial detail, local delivery information and proof points to make the response credible. It is not a replacement for bid strategy or subject matter expertise.

There can also be occasions where the content needs tightening to meet strict word counts or page limits. The tool is helpful for structure and clarity, but it can sometimes produce more wording than required, so additional editing is needed to make the final response concise and focused.

From a workflow perspective, the value depends heavily on how well the source material, prompts and inputs are prepared. If the input is too broad or unclear, the output can require more refinement. I would also like to see even stronger integration with approved bid libraries, case studies, pricing assumptions and contract-specific data, as that would make the outputs even more tailored and reduce manual checking.

Overall, I see AutogenAI as a strong support tool, but it still needs experienced users to review, challenge and shape the content so that it is accurate, specific and genuinely client-focused. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The integration with SharePoint, Microsoft Word, and the unlimited customer service and support to get fully implemented and educate entire teams on how to use the platform. The customer support is absolutely amazing. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Sometimes the output seems a bit clunky, and there is a lack of contextual intuitive questions after a prompt to help a user dive deeper or incorporate different/missed aspects of the original question/prompt. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

- Ability to select Libraries and control the sources

- Ability to create targeted RFP deliverables

- User interface was consistent with other AI apps

- Performance was acceptable Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

UI was pretty good but has opportunities for improvement with respect to finding certain functionality such as the ability to export output to a Word document Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like how the interface is integrated with bids in mind. With other AI tools, there may be the same functionality but it needs to be accessed separately and isn't targeted for bids. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

At the moment we don't have the document library set up so I haven't been able to take full advantage of the features. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I really appreciate the integration of local and global intellectual capital repositories within the library, together with the solution design workflow embedded into the user interface via Projects, and the capability to expand teamwork both in content creation (Project) and in content review (Porject). AI specialization from analysis to review is helpful, supported by some custom prompting to generate storyboard parts. I've also interacted with AutogenAI Support Team, issuing some tickets, and I promptly received feedback and resolution. I've experienced a performance boost in my traditional scavenging approach to find good intellectual capital reusable content thanks to Research, and I appreciated the Ideator feature. I used a lot the Editor We Will, Explain How, Add Case Study and Add Statistics functions, powered by company's repos are strong improver of generated content. The capability to sub-set the IC repos by Source Provider feature is also great, because you can taylor your content according to market segment, year, or specific artifact type, at least if the IC repos are well setup.

For example:

I use Extract to collect info from specific topics that could be spread into several requirement documents

I use Ideator to craft ideas turning on all the AI embedded in AutogenAI; useful ideas are converted into Drafts documents, to be used as valuable insert into a proposal document

If some diagrams are included in the document set, I analyse them using Copilot or ChatGPT, obtaining a text description of the diagram, being an org model, a high-level plan, an AOD, or similar. This enable AutogenAI to enrich its AI Analysis using content it can actually process

I use Search function within AutogenAI to look for interesting artifacts or IC that could be reused, when targeted by Sources selection within AutogenAI

I craft a prompt in Research to build prompts for REQUIREMENTS section in storyboard that are not autogenerated by AI Analysis in Project, due to custom build of proposal outline

I draft the Q&A questions list to be submitted to the Customer, together with engagement team, and generate an answer using Workbooks and Library AI; this is not intended to be meaningful to some questions, but it has proven to be informative before actual Customer answers.

I build the proposal draft within AutogenAI supported by fellow solutioners, using their knowledge on the topic to enrich the drafting with meaningful prompts; currently AutogenAI doesn’t provide followup prompts nor in Research nor in Editor, while Copilot or ChatGPT do. I use only Library AI and Datasets, narrowed to market sector or specific topics if I know these are available in KL

I use Gamma Review to suggest compliance checks with requirements, and feasible suggestions are used within AskAI as prompts

After building a proposal draft within AutogenAI, I export it to be uploaded and shared into the engagement folder, allowing other engagement people to explore its content, and use it to craft their proposal sections content; if available from other solutioners, I add images / diagrams / tables Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I've no detailed insights about Pricing or ROI because it is managed globally, but I guess the time to value to create usable content is well placed. I currently don't like the Project Smart Requirements workflow, preferring the Smart Questions one, because in my experience it requires more effort to carve out some good results, and I also think that the Extract feature provides too detailed output to be effectively further reused in deeper analysis.

I don't like the Compliance Checklist because somehow it misses a lot of requirements you should comply with, while the fairly detailed Compliance Matrix misses the feedback to provide review of the content already generated. It would be really helpful if the Compliance Matrix could evaluate the content generated compared with the requirements list, and track its evolution while generating the content inside the Proposal Outline Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like that AutogenAI is purpose‑built for bids and proposals, so it understands structures, compliance, and tone much better than generic AI tools. I also value how it turns past bids and content libraries into an active asset, using semantic search and smart reuse rather than just storing documents.

Its agentic workflow tools are another standout, because they help manage multi‑step RFP processes end‑to‑end, from structuring responses to routing drafts for input and approval. Finally, I’m impressed by the measurable impact users report, such as significantly faster drafting and higher win rates on proposals. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I dislike that AutogenAI is positioned and priced very much as an enterprise tool, which makes it hard for smaller teams to justify, especially with opaque “contact us” pricing, minimum seat commitments, and extra onboarding fees. I’m also not a fan of how much manual governance is still required: users have to perform their own conflict checks, manage content freshness, and verify accuracy for complex or regulated bids, which undermines some of the promised automation. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.