The closest comparison of the two on this site — both send proposals as a web page rather than a PDF.
What the analytics actually tell you
Quixli reports attention per section — which parts held it, which were skipped, and whether the reader came back a day later — rather than a total time on the page.
Stated limits
Quixli says in the product and in its privacy policy that it measures what was on screen, not whether anyone read it, and every recipient can see what is recorded from a link on the document.
The documents after the proposal
Scopes of work, client reports, runbooks and architecture notes, with diagrams, code blocks and synced blocks — one tool rather than two.
A free plan without a card
Not a trial that expires — a plan you can stay on.
Putting a large diagram in a document usually means drawing it somewhere else, exporting a PNG, uploading it, and doing the whole loop again when one arrow moves. In Quixli the diagram is an element with an editor behind it, and the same is true of the things you would otherwise screenshot.
Mermaid diagrams
flowcharts, sequences and architecture, written as text and rendered live — edit a line, not the image
Excalidraw drawings
sketched inside the document, and still editable a month later
Charts
built from a data grid with a live preview, not pasted from a spreadsheet
Project timelines
a real Gantt view rather than a picture of one
Figma embeds
the frame itself, which updates when the file does
Google Docs and Sheets
embedded and readable in place
PDFs and file attachments
read inside the document instead of downloaded
YouTube, Vimeo and Loom
the walkthrough plays where it is relevant
Code blocks and formulas
syntax highlighting and maths, for the documents that need them
Markdown, in and out
paste it straight into the editor and it becomes real headings, tables and code blocks — or import a .md file, or export the document back out as one
| Quixli | Qwilr | |
|---|---|---|
| Proposals as a web page | Yes | Yes |
| Which sections held attention | Yes, per section | Time on page and blocks |
| Return visits reported | Yes | Yes |
| Interactive pricing the client selects | Yes | Yes |
| Electronic signature | No | Yes |
| CRM integrations | No | Yes |
| Diagrams | Mermaid and Excalidraw editors | Upload an image |
| Embedded Figma, Docs, Sheets, PDFs | Yes, live in the document | Link out or screenshot |
| PIN-protected and expiring links | Yes | Yes |
| Free plan without a card | Yes | Trial |
No prices are compared here on purpose: both change, and a stale figure would be worse than none. Check Qwilr’s own pricing page alongside ours.
Choose Qwilr if the proposal has to be accepted and signed in the same page, or if it must connect to your CRM. Both are things it does and Quixli does not.
Choose Quixli if you want to know which section they stopped on rather than how long the page was open, and if the scope of work, the report and the handover documentation should live in the same place as the proposal.
For sending proposals as a tracked web page, yes. For accepting and signing them in the document, no — Quixli has no signature.
Quixli attributes time to individual sections and reports what was skipped and whether the reader returned later, so the follow-up can be about the part they hesitated on.
Or start from a ready-made template.