Compare 1up vs Arphie on pricing, source-backed answers, questionnaire coverage, integrations, security, and team fit using same-day verified evidence.
AI software for RFPs, security questionnaires, and sales knowledge answers
High-volume RFP/RFx response with AI-generated first drafts grounded in approved company content
Knowledge agents to enable GTM teams
High-volume RFP and DDQ response with AI first drafts and source-backed review
1up is the more accessible starting point when transparent tiers, a free plan, multilingual answers, chat access, and multi-region hosting matter. Arphie is the stronger fit when teams need named SIG, CAIQ, and DDQ coverage, live-source retrieval, citations, freshness controls, and a more extensive collaborative review workflow.
You want a low-friction entry into response and sales-knowledge automation.
You need a source-verifiable workflow for recurring RFP and diligence programs.
These are editorial interpretations of the verified fields below—not vendor scores.
1up publishes a free tier, a $50/month MCP entry, and questionnaire plans from $300/month with stated admin, file, and monthly-questionnaire limits.
Arphie does not publish list prices or project allowances. First-party material describes concurrent-project pricing with unlimited users and core capabilities at every tier.
1up documents Word, Excel, Google Sheets, PDF, and web questionnaires, but the verified format field names only custom questionnaires.
Arphie explicitly names SIG, CAIQ, DDQ, and custom questionnaires and pairs them with citations, freshness controls, co-editing, approvals, and progress tracking.
1up emphasizes answer access in three major chat tools, browser extensions, multilingual generation, and a separately priced customer Answer Hub.
Arphie emphasizes live retrieval from knowledge and enablement systems, source citations, stale-content handling, response analytics, and access through Arphie MCP.
1up publishes SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, audit logs, role-based access, encryption, and US, EU, and AU residency; SCIM and named SSO providers remain unconfirmed.
Arphie publishes SOC 2 Type II, audit logs, role-based access, encryption, and several named SSO options, but only US hosting is confirmed and SCIM remains unconfirmed.
Public evidence is normalized without currency conversion or inferred feature parity.
| Decision field | ||
|---|---|---|
| Published starting price | $50/mo plus usage | Contact sales |
| Charging basis | Flat rate | Custom scope |
| Public plan names | FreeMCPStarterPlusEnterprise | No public plan matrix |
| Target team sizes | SMBMidMarketEnterprise | SMBMidMarketEnterprise |
| Named questionnaire formats | Custom | SIGCAIQDDQCustom |
| Collaboration controls | Review workflowsApproval workflowsTask assignmentRole-based access | Co-editingCommentingReview workflowsApproval workflowsProgress trackingRole-based accessNotifications |
| CRM integrations | Salesforce | Salesforce |
| Cloud storage | Google DriveSharePointEgnyteMicrosoft OneDrive | Google DriveSharePointDropboxBox |
| Communication tools | SlackMicrosoft TeamsGoogle Chat | Slack |
| SSO and provisioning | SCIM not publicly confirmed | OktaMicrosoft AzureOneLoginADFSGoogle authenticationSCIM not publicly confirmed |
| Public security controls | SOC 2 Type IIISO 27001Audit logsRole-based access | SOC 2 Type IIAudit logsRole-based access |
| Data residency | USEUAU | US |
A named capability confirms documented scope, not implementation quality. Test the relevant cluster with your own sources and response format.
Published plans are entry evidence, not guaranteed quotes. Normalize users, project volume, AI usage, modules, onboarding, support, and renewal terms.
$50/mo plus usage · Flat rate
1 admin; unlimited users
3 admins; unlimited users
10 admins; unlimited users
A separately presented customer-facing Answer Hub offer is $1,000/month. The current page advertises 15% annual savings; exact discounted dollar totals are not printed in the extracted page.
Contact sales · Custom scope
No list prices or project allowances are published. Current first-party material says pricing is based on concurrent projects, with unlimited users and all core capabilities at every tier. SSO and premium support may cost extra. G2 marks a free trial as available, but Arphie does not publish its duration or terms.
Each product keeps its own review date and source registry. Unknown public evidence is disclosed instead of converted into a losing score.
9 reviewed sources
13 reviewed sources
Request current reports, subprocessors, retention, model-training terms, and contract controls.
Compare time to an approved submission, not time to the first generated draft.
Use the same users, volume, modules, services, term, and renewal assumptions.
Product facts come from the linked source registries. Pair-specific verdicts and takeaways are editorial analysis based on the same normalized fields; unknown public evidence stays unknown and no vendor can pay for placement or a favorable conclusion.
9 checked · 8 official
13 checked · 10 official
Use the full RFP evaluation criteria, verified pricing matrix, and research methodology to keep the pilot reproducible.
1up is easier to price from public information because it publishes a free tier and paid capacity plans. Arphie uses custom concurrent-project pricing, so its actual cost depends on the quoted project scope, SSO, support, and contract terms. A public entry price and a custom quote are not directly comparable total costs.
Arphie's verified profile explicitly names SIG, CAIQ, and DDQ and includes citations and freshness controls. 1up supports security-questionnaire workflows across files and web forms, but its verified questionnaire-type field names only custom formats. Teams should test the exact questionnaire and portal they use.
Both publish SOC 2 Type II, encryption, audit logs, and role-based access. 1up also publishes ISO 27001 and US, EU, and AU residency. Arphie publishes a broader list of named SSO providers, while SCIM remains unconfirmed for both profiles.
