Migration Guide · Sales Enablement / RFX

Loopio → PYRAMYD. 30-day cutover.

Practical playbook for moving proposal automation from a Loopio / Responsive document-library deployment to a graph-grounded PYRAMYD RFX workspace. Library port, CRM integrations, the parallel run, and the 30-day timeline.

30-day cutoverLibrary imports cleanlySalesforce + Highspot compatibleFrom $50K/yr

Start the migration call Read the RFX substrate argument

Why teams move

Loopio's 2026 RFP Trends & Benchmarks Report (n=1,533 response professionals): industry average win rate is 45%, median RFP completion is 33 hours, and nearly 80% of teams used generative AI in 2025. The remaining lift comes from substrate · graph-grounded retrieval beats vector retrieval on multi-entity questions, and that's what PYRAMYD ships.

Source: Loopio · 2026 RFP Response Trends & Benchmarks Report (7th annual).

Same RFP question. Two outputs.

What graph grounding looks like at the response layer.

A real RFP question run against Loopio AI (vector search over the library) and PYRAMYD APEX (graph-grounded retrieval). Note the citation count, specificity, and competitor-context inline.

Inbound RFP question

“Describe how your platform handles FedRAMP Moderate authorization, Salesforce integration depth, and competitor differentiation versus Wiz and Lacework for a customer in financial services at 5,000+ seats.”

Loopio AI

Vector RAG · library only

FedRAMP: “Our platform is FedRAMP Moderate Authorized.” [approved-answer-241, library entry from Q3 2024]

Salesforce: “We integrate with Salesforce. Please see our integrations documentation.” [approved-answer-118, library entry from Q1 2024]

Competitor diff: “We have a unique approach to cloud security posture management with industry-leading capabilities.” [generic-positioning-08]

No specific Wiz or Lacework comparison; no FS-vertical context; no scale qualifier.

Provenance

3 library citations. FedRAMP status not re-verified against live FedRAMP marketplace. Last library edit: 9 weeks ago.

PYRAMYD APEX

GraphRAG · live graph

FedRAMP: Authorized at Moderate impact level. Authorization granted 2024-08-14; Continuous Monitoring active. Sponsoring agency: GSA. [fedramp.gov, verified 2026-05-28]

Salesforce: Native AppExchange listing (4.6★, 84 reviews). Supports SFDC Service Cloud, Field Service, Financial Services Cloud. SOC and remediation tickets push as Cases; CMDB sync via MuleSoft. [appexchange.salesforce.com, verified 2026-05-30]

Wiz comparison (FS, 5,000+ seat segment): Wiz leads on multi-cloud breadth (AWS + Azure + GCP parity); we lead on FS-specific compliance packs (NYDFS, FFIEC) and Snowflake-native CSPM. Wiz priced at $$$ vs our $$ at this segment. [g2.com/wiz, trustradius.com/wiz, our pricing-benchmarks 2026-Q1]

Lacework comparison: Lacework lead on Polygraph anomaly detection; we lead on remediation automation + lower TCO at this seat band. [g2.com/lacework, our win-loss DB 2026-Q1]

Provenance

14 citations across 6 sources. FedRAMP status auto-verified against live FedRAMP marketplace today. Competitor pricing band derived from PYRAMYD's graph + your tenant's win-loss history.

3 → 14

Citations (Loopio vs PYRAMYD)

9 wks → live

Data recency

0 → 2

Competitor comparisons inline

Side-by-side

Where the two approaches diverge.

Dimension	Loopio (document-library)	PYRAMYD (graph-grounded)
Response substrate	Document library + vector search + LLM rewrite	Graph-grounded retrieval with typed entities, citations, and provenance per claim
Library maintenance	Quarterly review cycles + manual content audits	Continuous live signal grounding · library auto-flags stale answers when underlying facts change
Competitive context in responses	Separate Loopio + Klue / Crayon stack · no native integration	Same graph · competitor capability data, review sentiment, and release activity inline in drafting
Median time-per-RFP	Industry benchmark: 25 hours per Loopio's own 2024 data	Under 5 hours per Loopio's AI-powered cohort benchmark · graph grounding hits the same target
Reviewer audit trail	Per-document version history	Per-claim provenance · every answer links to the underlying graph entity + source
CRM push	Salesforce + HubSpot connectors via Loopio integrations	Same Salesforce + HubSpot connectors · plus deal-stage context flowing back from CRM into drafting
Annual contract value	$30K-$80K typical	From $50K · and replaces CI + Product Ops tools at the same time

The 30-day timeline

Four weeks. Four phases.

Assumes existing Loopio (or Responsive) deployment with 5-8 active RFPs at any time, a typical Salesforce + Highspot integration footprint, and a 3-5 person proposal team.

Week 1 · Discovery

Export Loopio library · questions, approved answers, content tags, project metadata, owner mapping
Inventory active integrations · Salesforce, HubSpot, Highspot, Seismic, Slack, content stores
Identify the 3 highest-revenue RFP-heavy buyer segments where automation pays back fastest
Joint scoping with PYRAMYD design-partner success team

Week 2 · Library port

Import Loopio library into PYRAMYD workspace (JSON / CSV / API export)
Map each Q/A pair to its category, capability, and competitor entities in the graph
Wire Salesforce / HubSpot bidirectional sync so RFPs attach to opportunities automatically
Train the 3-5 proposal-team power users on the graph-grounded drafting flow

Week 3 · First parallel RFP

Pick the first inbound RFP · run it through both Loopio and PYRAMYD in parallel
Side-by-side review: response quality, citation count, answer recency, drafting time
Wire Highspot / Seismic content sync so approved RFP responses flow into the broader enablement stack
Calibrate the drafting agent against your team's editorial voice · first round of approved-style examples

Week 4 · Cutover + Loopio sunset

Migrate the remaining open RFPs (typical proposal teams have 8-14 in flight at any time)
Disable Loopio auto-publish to Highspot / Seismic / wikis; PYRAMYD becomes the upstream source
Cancel Loopio renewal at next contract date · typical 30-day notice clause
QBR alignment with Sales + Proposal teams; baseline the 30-60-90 day proposal-throughput KPI lift

Migration FAQ

What proposal teams ask before they switch.

Do we lose our existing question library if we move?

No. Loopio library imports cleanly via JSON / CSV export. The structure (categories, tags, approved-answer hierarchy, owner mapping) carries over. Approved answers become baseline grounding content; the graph layer adds live competitor + customer + product context that updates without manual review cycles.

What about Responsive (RFPIO)?

Same migration pattern. Same import path. Same Salesforce / Highspot / Seismic compatibility. The 30-day playbook applies identically.

How is this different from Loopio AI?

Loopio AI is vector-search over your library + LLM rewrite. PYRAMYD is graph-grounded retrieval with typed entities, multi-hop reasoning, and citation provenance per claim. Microsoft Research's GraphRAG benchmarks show 70-80% accuracy improvement on the multi-hop questions that define enterprise RFPs. We've covered the substrate argument in our Sales Enablement / RFX blog post.

What's the KPI to track at 30/60/90 days?

Three metrics: (1) median time-per-RFP · Loopio reports 25 hours; AI-powered cohort hits under 5; we target the AI-cohort number by day 60. (2) RFP completion rate · the 22% of RFPs Responsive reports as abandoned should approach zero. (3) Win rate on submitted RFPs · Loopio's 2024 report cites 15-30% win-rate lift for AI-powered teams; we target the midpoint at the named-competitor segment by day 90.

Does the proposal team get smaller?

Usually not. Most teams reinvest the recovered 20 hours per RFP into higher-margin work · more strategic RFPs in the pipeline, better win-loss analysis, more time on the deal-stage briefing your AEs actually need.

Ready to start the cutover?

Book the 30-minute migration call. We'll review your Loopio deployment, scope the library port, confirm CRM compatibility, and set the cutover date.

Start the migration call See the Sales Enablement use case