RuleDox vs Bonsai: Google Docs Scope Assembly vs Proposal + Contracts + Invoicing

If you are searching “RuleDox vs Bonsai”, you are probably trying to solve one of two problems.

Either you want a faster way to send proposals and get paid, or you want your scopes of work to stop changing based on who wrote them.

RuleDox and Bonsai can both touch a “scope of work”, but they are built for different jobs.

Bonsai (Hello Bonsai) is typically an all-in-one system for small service businesses: proposals, contracts, forms, invoicing, payments, time tracking, and client management.

RuleDox is focused: it assembles scopes of work (and related project documents) inside Google Docs from rules, variables, and conditional sections.

If your main pain is:

• “I need to send proposals, get signatures, invoice, and manage clients in one place”

Bonsai is likely closer.

If your main pain is:

• “We have templates but we still rebuild scopes in Google Docs, and the boundaries are inconsistent”

RuleDox is built for that.

Need	RuleDox	Bonsai
Create consistent scopes in Google Docs	Strong	Possible (templates), but not Docs-first
Conditional sections based on inputs (rules-based assembly)	Core feature	Not the core model
Proposals with e-signature and a client portal	Not the core focus	Strong
Contracts, invoicing, payments, time tracking	Not the focus	Core feature
Team scoping consistency across multiple PMs	Strong	Depends on template discipline
Keep one “source of truth” in Google Docs for delivery	Strong	Often pushes authoring inside the platform

Bonsai generally treats a scope of work as part of a broader proposal and contract workflow:

• choose a template
• customise content
• send to client
• get approval/signature
• move into invoicing and client management

That is valuable if your biggest bottleneck is operational administration.

The trade-off is that templates tend to be static. You still rely on the writer to:

• pick the right clauses
• include the right exclusions
• adjust deliverables when variables change (page count, integrations, content responsibilities)

In other words: the system makes sending documents easy, but it does not necessarily make the scope itself consistent.

RuleDox is designed around the reality that scopes change based on variables.

Instead of writing a scope from scratch, you:

• capture the project inputs (variables)
• select the right modules (deliverables, exclusions, acceptance standards)
• include conditional sections based on those inputs
• generate a scope directly in Google Docs

The goal is not “a nice-looking document”. The goal is:

• the same scope structure every time
• fewer omissions
• clearer boundaries
• a document your delivery team can actually run the project from

Use this as a decision frame.

• you are a freelancer or small team that wants an all-in-one back office
• proposals and signatures are the primary bottleneck
• you want invoicing, payments, and time tracking tied to the same workflow
• you are comfortable doing most client documents inside a dedicated platform

• your agency already runs delivery in Google Docs and Google Workspace
• you keep re-scoping similar projects (Shopify builds, SEO retainers, web redesigns)
• you need scopes to be consistent across multiple people
• you want scope assembly based on variables, not manual copying

Some agencies use a proposal tool for selling and billing, and RuleDox for the scope that governs delivery. The important part is to avoid two competing “final” documents.

A common workflow:

1. Proposal in your preferred system
2. Scope of work assembled in Google Docs (RuleDox) and approved
3. Delivery runs off the scope document

Many teams assume “we can just export a PDF”. But in real delivery:

• the team comments and collaborates in Docs
• changes happen in Docs
• internal reviewers edit in Docs
• handover notes end up in Docs

If the authoritative scope is not in Google Docs, you end up with drift:

• the signed version is different from what delivery uses
• the “latest” version is not the agreed version

RuleDox exists to keep the output where the work actually happens.

• Do we want the authoritative scope of work to live in Google Docs?
• Do we scope projects based on variables (pages, templates, integrations, markets)?
• Do different PMs currently produce different scopes for the same engagement?
• Do we need conditional sections (if B2B then include B2B rules, if migration then include redirects and content inventory)?

• Do our scopes consistently define exclusions in a high-signal way?
• Do we have written acceptance criteria and feedback round limits?
• Do we have a change request process that is actually used?

• Do we need proposals, e-signature, invoicing, and payments tightly integrated?
• Do we need time tracking tied to invoices?
• Do we need a client portal for ongoing work?

• If the top answers are “Docs-first scope consistency and conditional assembly”, shortlist RuleDox.
• If the top answers are “proposal-to-payment workflow”, shortlist Bonsai.
• If you need both categories, define the handover: proposal accepted, then scope assembled and approved.

No. RuleDox is focused on assembling scopes (and related delivery documents) in Google Docs using rules and variables. Bonsai is designed to manage proposals, contracts, invoicing, and client management.

Yes, via templates and document creation features. The difference is that it typically relies on manual editing of a static document, rather than rules-based assembly into Google Docs.

That is not the goal. If you need invoicing, payments, and time tracking, a platform like Bonsai is designed for that workflow.

Templates help, but they still require manual assembly, and the output varies by writer. If variables change (page count, integrations, content responsibilities), a template does not enforce consistent boundaries. RuleDox’s value is turning those variables into a consistent Google Docs scope output.

Bring a recent real project and test how quickly you can produce a scope with explicit deliverables, exclusions, acceptance, and change triggers. The best demo is one where your team can see the document they would actually ship.

If your core problem is inconsistent scope, start with /content/ai/proposal-tools-vs-scope-assembly and /content/ai/automate-scope-of-work-google-docs. If you are also standardising Shopify delivery, use /content/shopify/shopify-scope-of-work-template.