SEQUESTO vs ChatGPT, Claude and Copilot

For drafting, ChatGPT and Copilot are capable tools, and OpenAI's own sales guide suggests ChatGPT for first-pass RFP answers. A tender also needs the work around the draft: pulling every question and limit out of the pack, giving each one an owner and a date, keeping the answer within the buyer's word count, and showing later who approved what. With either tool the team does that itself, or builds and maintains the process to do it. In SEQUESTO it happens inside the project, which matters most when several people answer one tender against a deadline.

Each answer needs checking before it goes into a tender or RFP, because a general-purpose assistant can produce an answer that reads well and is wrong, usually called a hallucination. The vendors say so themselves: OpenAI that “ChatGPT can make mistakes, and you should check important information”, Anthropic that users “should not rely on Claude as a singular source of truth”, and Microsoft that Copilot's responses “aren't guaranteed to be 100% factual”. Once submitted, what the response states can become a contractual commitment, and the bid manager carries the legal accountability for it. SEQUESTO drafts from the team's approved knowledge, attributes every AI-generated answer to the source it was built from, and leaves the final wording and sign-off with a person. The review still happens, but it checks each answer against a cited source rather than against the reviewer's memory.

ChatGPT Enterprise covers the main security questions about the tool itself: no training on business data by default, audit logs through OpenAI's Compliance Platform, and storage at rest in a chosen region, Europe among them. It also shares Projects across the team. In our view, what it leaves to the team is the response process: checking that every question was extracted, an owner and a deadline per question, word limits, a library of approved answers and the export back into the buyer's format. Whether that is enough depends on how many tenders the team answers and how many people work on each one.

The choice turns on the team's engineering capacity and how stable its process is. Keeping the assistant the team already uses, grounded in approved content, is a third option. Building on ChatGPT or Claude gets a team to a drafting tool quickly. What then has to be built and kept running is the process around each answer: permissions per contributor, review and sign-off per question, a library of approved answers with owners and review dates, an audit trail that satisfies a buyer's security review, checks on answer quality as models change, and someone to maintain it when the person who built it moves on. A build suits a team with real engineering capacity and a simple, stable process. SEQUESTO is the buy option, and it also serves the third: an assistant that works with MCP can connect to SEQUESTO's MCP server, and SEQUESTO's REST API connects the team's own systems.

For drafting, often yes, and it is already where the team works. Copilot can draft an answer in Word from the SharePoint files a writer can open, and Copilot Chat can read an uploaded tender document and list what it asks for. What it leaves to the team is the tender itself: one list of every question, an owner and a deadline on each, the buyer's word limits, a library of approved answers and the sign-off before submission. A team can build some of that in Copilot Studio and then maintain it. SEQUESTO does it inside the project and works alongside Microsoft 365, with SharePoint feeding the Knowledge Hub and Teams carrying notifications and approvals.

For tender work the three are close. All three draft well, share work across a team on their business plans and keep audit logs. The differences sit around the edges. Copilot works inside Word and Outlook on the SharePoint content each user can already open, which suits a team whose past bids live in Microsoft 365. On data location, ChatGPT Enterprise can store content at rest in Europe and Copilot keeps EU traffic inside Microsoft's EU Data Boundary, while Anthropic's privacy centre states that Claude's data is stored in the US. Each leaves the tender process for the team to organise, from checking the question list to assigning owners, keeping to word limits and building the approval process. In our view, the choice between them matters less than the process around whichever one the team uses.

You check its reply against the file yourself, because the list is only an answer in a chat, and OpenAI's help centre notes that a large or complex spreadsheet may not get a complete analysis. In SEQUESTO, Agent Force extracts the questions, requirements, evaluation criteria and word limits into the project as tracked items, each with an owner and a status. A question nobody has answered stays visible before submission, and the export keeps the structure the file arrived in, with the same sections and order.

The difference is what each action is logged against. ChatGPT Enterprise keeps audit logs through OpenAI's Compliance Platform, Claude Enterprise has its own audit logs, and Microsoft Purview records each Copilot interaction with the files it read. Each logs the conversation, while SEQUESTO logs every action against the tender item it belongs to, from intake to submission: what was ingested and retrieved, which agent was invoked with which inputs and outputs, every edit, approval and export, each with the person and the time. One answer can be traced from the buyer's question to the version that went out, and the log is searchable and exportable.