Seems very powerful - can create meaningful content quickly and I can see how this could be useful in bids. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

User interface isn't that consistent between the different components and some bits are a bit clunky.

This will only be really useful if we have dedicated "librarians" to ensure that the library is continually updated with high quality content - RFPs, proposals, case studies, etc.

What guarantees do we have that it won't "hallucinate"? Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I really like AutogenAI's user interface because it's intuitive to use. It makes it easy to pick out specific areas that I want the AI to review against to produce its responses. It's very useful for reviewing and generating bid collateral, and for responding to RFPs and RFIs. As we use it more, it becomes increasingly useful. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I dislike that the current version of AutogenAI doesn't pick up large volumes of information from a SharePoint site, which would be a useful feature. It's something that's supposedly going to be added in future updates according to some colleagues I've talked to. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Generate complete first drafts in minutes, instead of starting from scratch. Generate content based on real company material with a corporate tone. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It depends a lot on the quality of the "knowledge library"; sometimes it can give repetitive results. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I really like its Research Assistant feature due to its ease of use. I'm able to make quick iterations and edits and follow up my prompts to further enhance the output I want. I also like that customer feedback is being used to create a better user experience. The initial setup of AutogenAI was very easy. Currently the best tool if you are into bid writing Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

None Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like that AutogenAI makes the whole bid process contained in one system, which makes it very straightforward to use. It feels well-structured and organized, especially through the kind of outline that you create. The setup was easy; you just log in, and pretty much, that's it. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

For me, it's about the lack of connection to our own knowledge library and connecting with SharePoint so that all our collateral can be used as source material. I know that capability is coming in due course. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I appreciate that the product is regularly updated in response to client feedback. Even though some of the current features might not be exactly what we need at the moment, it's reassuring to know that our input is taken into account and may influence future updates. I think the best three features of the product are:

1. Prompts/Pure Completion: The range/flexibility here has been great in terms of reviewing first drafts for bids, as it provides a more accurate viewpoint of whether questions/specifications have been addressed in comparison to Gamma Review. I was able to design my own prompt which included the command, bid question, bid specification, marking criteria & suggestions for improvement to ensure it meets the maximum marking criteria.

2. Search Prompt: An issue we've experienced with building first drafts is that using the expand function means that the AI would write an answer, which takes away the human element of bid writing somewhat. To overcome this, the search tool has been great at finding relevant text based on keywords I've built to associate with my pre-selected bid answers in my library; this allows me to pull the exact text from the sources for editing in my first drafts, which puts the control further back in my hands.

3. Library Management: The ability to create/sanitise your own bid library is much more efficient than looking for ideas/sources from a library with much wider subject matters. It feels like a constantly evolving product, in that the more relevant information you give it, the more relevant information you get back. While we do use a lot of Word/Excel/PDF files, what could help is an ability to pull stats from PowerBI dashboards we use to advance our libraries further. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I do think some features need tweaking (in various levels depending on the experience) as they tend to add more time to the bid process rather than reduce time. For conciseness, I've listed the three features that I feel require the most improvement:

1. Research Assistant: It feels quite ineffective at pulling requested information from specific internet sources. For example, I asked it to give me a detailed list of all providers within an apprenticeship framework, even asking it to look at the URL that contained all this information, only to get a result saying that it was unable to do this. The result was right in front of it and it failed.

2. Gamma Review: Concerning my comments about Prompt/Pure Completion being an effective review tool, I think it does defeat the point of having Gamma Review as a feature. It has problems concerning word counts and lack of text boxes to provide the required information to ensure accurate review. While one could argue you could use the Extract/Summarise tool to make it fit the word count, you run the risk of compromising accuracy in your review process because some things just get omitted by default. In addition, while you can review answers against pre-defined criteria (e.g. innovation/evidence/robustness), bid writers will always defer to the scoring criteria given in each individual bid, making these pre-defined criteria seem inaccurate, although well-intentioned. To improve this, I think the system needs the following:

- Individual text boxes (without word counts) centered around the question, marking criteria, specification,

- Option for draft revision to ensure drafts hit maximum scoring criteria

3. Template Management/SSQ completion: Template Management could be a great tool for completing SSQ documents almost instantly, but because the process of exporting content into these templates is jarring as the template seems to take on a different form, it leaves some potential/time on the table. It needs to just input text based on question recognition identified within sources (e.g. library, datasets, Q&A workbooks), leave the template in its pre-uploaded form, and thats it, that should be all completed.

I'm probably suggesting a whole new feature here, but some way to upload an SSQ draft and populate it based on library sources (e.g. question recognition) would save time for future submissions. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

AutogenAI is impressively fast, and its user-friendly, intuitive design makes it a pleasure to use. I really appreciate how it incorporates our previous content and branding into proposals, turning the process of creating a first draft into an effortless experience. Whenever I face writer's block, I can simply ask it a question, and it provides the starting point I need. Its ability to handle every aspect of bidding, including extracting requirements and deadlines, is outstanding and saves a significant amount of time. The document comparison tool has also been invaluable. AutogenAI has greatly reduced our preparation time for bids, making the entire process faster, easier, and more accurate. The customer support is excellent, with monthly check-ins, updates on new features, and a helpful resource library that simplifies our workflow. Integration was straightforward—just uploading the necessary documents—and it works seamlessly with SharePoint. It's a tool we rely on daily; it's always open and in use. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

One downside is that everyone is required to have a license. It would be great if contributors could review text without needing to log in or have a license. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It’s efficient and lets me access accurate information quickly when I need it. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It’s a little clunky to use, and it could be made more straightforward by using terminology that’s already used and is familiar within the Bid Community. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like the option to 'apply the Atos tone' to outputs in AutogenAI. I also like the way that work can be organized into projects, even though I haven't used it in a team situation yet. Additionally, the initial setup was easy as it was done for me. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I think that at some point we will need to move responses into an M365 document so it can be reviewed etc. After that, I'm not sure how we get responses back into AutogenAI without a cut & paste. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

AutogenAI is excellent at speeding up the drafting process in bidding whilst maintaining attention to detail. The document editor in My Drafts is by far the most useful feature with a range of tools that make shaping content very simple. Being able to filter sources is also invaluable. The system is easy to use and fits seamlessly into my existing workflow, increasing how much I can get done in a day. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The main limitation is that prompts have to start in the initial window before moving into the editor which isn't a major barrier, but it creates an extra step that would be avoided if these prompts could be done directly within the editor itself as this is the feature I find most useful. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.