Anewstip vs Hunter
An independent, review-free comparison compiled by the SaaSTracker editorial team. Both products are profiled in full, and neither can pay for placement here.
The short answer
Editorial assessmentAnewstip compared with Hunter
Hunter finds work email addresses at any company from a domain and a name, including at publications, and costs a fraction of a media database. What it cannot do is tell you which journalist to contact: there is no article index, no beat data, and no journalist-specific records. If you already have a list of reporters and need addresses, Hunter is cheaper. If the hard part is deciding who to pitch, Hunter does not help and Anewstip does.
Choose Anewstip if
Founders, solo PR consultants, and small in-house teams who want to build a targeted journalist list from what reporters actually wrote, and who value unlimited contact reveals over polished software. The free tier makes it a reasonable permanent research companion even for teams that pitch from a different tool.
Choose Hunter if
Small teams and solo founders who need reliable work email addresses for named people at named companies, want to see where each address came from, and would rather pay a flat monthly fee with unlimited seats than a per-seat contact database subscription.
Side by side
13 attributes| Attribute | Anewstip | Hunter |
|---|---|---|
| Category | PR | Data |
| Starting price | Free; paid plans from $200 per month (Standard), with a $99 per month early-stage plan for eligible applicants (free plan available) | 0 euros (Free, 50 credits per month), then 49 euros per month (Starter) (free plan available) |
| Pricing model | Subscription with four tiers, metered on pitch volume, number of media lists, contacts per list, and number of alerts. Access to journalist email addresses and phone numbers is unlimited on every tier including the free plan, which is unusual for this category. Pitch capacity can be topped up with one-time, non-expiring point packages. Standard bills monthly or annually; Professional is annual only. | Freemium monthly or annual subscription priced in euros by credit allowance, with unlimited team members on every plan and a separately quoted Data Platform for API-heavy buyers. |
| Free plan | 1 user, unlimited email and phone reveals, 2 media lists of up to 100 contacts, 2 alerts, and zero pitches per month | 50 credits per month, one connected email account, 100,000 saved leads, 10 AI searches and 15 AI suggestions, and full access to Domain Search, Email Finder, and Email Verifier. |
| Free trial | 7 days on Standard and Professional, converting to a paid subscription automatically unless cancelled | No time-limited trial; the permanent free tier is the evaluation path |
| Best for | Founders, solo PR consultants, and small in-house teams who want to build a targeted journalist list from what reporters actually wrote, and who value unlimited contact reveals over polished software. The free tier makes it a reasonable permanent research companion even for teams that pitch from a different tool. | Small teams and solo founders who need reliable work email addresses for named people at named companies, want to see where each address came from, and would rather pay a flat monthly fee with unlimited seats than a per-seat contact database subscription. |
| Setup time | Minutes. Registration is self-serve, there is nothing to install or connect, and the first useful search happens on the free plan before any payment. Building a first media list of a few dozen contacts is an afternoon of query iteration rather than a project. | Under ten minutes for the lookup product: create an account, run a domain search, install the extension. Campaigns takes another twenty to thirty minutes because you have to connect and authenticate a sending mailbox and set up tracking and unsubscribe handling. |
| Learning curve | Low mechanically, higher editorially. The search syntax and filters are straightforward; the skill that decides results is choosing query phrases specific enough to surface genuinely relevant writers and disciplined enough not to fill a list with anyone who mentioned your category in passing. | Very low. Domain Search and Email Finder are self-explanatory, and the only concept that needs learning is the difference between a valid result, an accept-all result, and a pattern-inferred guess. Teams that ignore the confidence score and treat every result as verified are the ones who complain about bounces. |
| Platforms | Web application, ClipCoverage Google Slides add-on (separate product and account) | Web application, Chrome extension, Firefox extension, Google Sheets add-on, REST API v2 |
| Compliance | No published SOC 2, ISO 27001, or equivalent attestation, Card payments handled by Stripe, so card data is not stored on Anewstip servers, Privacy policy includes a section addressed to journalists and other indexed individuals | GDPR with a data processing agreement, CCPA, Published individual claim and removal process |
| Founded | 2014 | 2015 |
| Headquarters | Hong Kong (terms of service governed by California law, San Francisco jurisdiction) | Wilmington, Delaware, United States (fully remote team across Europe, America, and Asia) |
| Ownership | Independent, founder-operated | Bootstrapped and independent |
Strengths and limitations
Anewstip
Strengths
- Searching by what journalists actually published beats filtering by assigned beat tags for niche or technical topics, and this is the tool built around that idea.
- Unlimited email and phone reveals on every tier, including free, removes the per-credit anxiety that shapes how teams use most media databases.
- The free plan is usable indefinitely for research, which makes it a low-risk permanent addition to a stack even if you pitch from elsewhere.
- One saved query serves three jobs: a list, an alert, and an AutoList rule that keeps building the list without supervision.
Limitations
- The Twitter and X search, historically the product's defining feature, is labeled deprecated inside the app; if that is why you are looking at Anewstip, it is no longer the reason to buy.
- The company appears to be a one-to-few-person operation with no outside funding since its 2014 founding, which is a genuine continuity risk for a system of record you would keep for years.
- The public site is visibly stale: the customer count is footnoted as of August 2018, testimonials date to the Twitter era, a Google Plus link survives in the markup, and the footer's about, blog, and contact links resolve to 404 pages.
- The terms of service carry a December 2014 effective date and the privacy policy is generic template text with no named GDPR lawful basis, no data processing agreement, and no subprocessor list, which will stall enterprise or EU procurement.
Hunter
Strengths
- Credits are only consumed on results, so the advertised price is close to the real cost per found email rather than a ceiling you never reach.
- Per-result public source citations are close to unique in this category and are the strongest available answer to a provenance or GDPR question.
- Unlimited team members on every plan, including Free, removes the per-seat tax that makes comparable tools expensive for small teams.
- The API is properly documented with published per-second and per-minute limits, free management endpoints, and stable behaviour, which is why Hunter appears as a provider inside so many waterfall tools.
Limitations
- No phone numbers at all, in any tier, which rules Hunter out entirely for teams that cold call.
- Coverage is a function of what companies publish on the open web, so it is strong for tech, agencies, media, and education and noticeably weaker for manufacturing, trades, healthcare, and privately held mid-market firms.
- It is not a prospecting database: Discover finds companies, but you cannot filter a hundred million people by title and seniority the way you can in Apollo or UpLead.
- Confidence scores and pattern inference mean some returned addresses are educated guesses; the pattern is usually right but the individual result can be wrong, and a wrong result still consumed a credit.
Pricing compared
Anewstip
Subscription with four tiers, metered on pitch volume, number of media lists, contacts per list, and number of alerts. Access to journalist email addresses and phone numbers is unlimited on every tier including the free plan, which is unusual for this category. Pitch capacity can be topped up with one-time, non-expiring point packages. Standard bills monthly or annually; Professional is annual only.
- Free$0
- Standard$200
- Professional$400
- PartnersCustom
Judged purely on capability per dollar for research, Anewstip is one of the best offers in the category, because the free tier does not withhold the thing every competitor charges for. A founder can identify and reach the right forty journalists for the price of a single point package. The judgment gets harder at $200 per month, where Standard buys one user, 1,000 sends, and twenty lists against competitors that charge two to five times as much but ship modern software, coverage reporting, CRM-grade relationship history, and support you can rely on. The honest framing is that you are buying a database and a search engine at a fair price, with dated tooling wrapped around it, from a company small enough that continuity is a real consideration.
Hunter
Freemium monthly or annual subscription priced in euros by credit allowance, with unlimited team members on every plan and a separately quoted Data Platform for API-heavy buyers.
- Free0 euros
- Starter49 euros
- Growth149 euros
- Scale299 euros
- EnterpriseCustom
At Growth, 10,000 credits for 149 euros works out at roughly 0.015 euros per found email, and because failed searches are free that number holds in practice rather than in theory. At Starter, 2,000 credits for 49 euros is about 0.025 euros each. Both are competitive with Anymail Finder and cheaper than credit-metered platforms once you account for unlimited seats and the bundled sending tool, which alone would cost 30 to 50 dollars a month elsewhere. The catch is scope: there are no phone numbers, so a team that needs to call as well as email is buying a second tool regardless, and at that point the bundled Campaigns feature is less of a saving than it looks.
Editorial verdict on each
Anewstip
Anewstip is the cheapest credible way to answer the question that actually matters in media relations: which specific journalists have already written about the thing I am announcing, and how do I reach them. Searching published articles instead of assigned beat tags produces better lists in niche categories, and giving away unlimited email and phone reveals on a free plan is a genuinely different commercial posture from the rest of the category. Against that, the software is dated, the marketing site has visibly not been touched in years, the tweet search that made the product famous is now marked deprecated, compliance documentation is effectively absent, and the company appears to be one person. Buy it as a research utility, on Standard's month-to-month terms or the free plan, keep exports of anything you would miss, and do not expect it to be the system of record a growing PR function will need in three years.
Read the full Anewstip profileHunter
Hunter is the safest choice in this category for a small business that needs work email addresses and nothing else. Credits are charged only on results, seats are unlimited, credits last a year, the API is properly documented, and every address comes with the public URLs it was found at, which is the best answer anyone in this market gives to the provenance question. A decade of bootstrapped independence means the terms are unlikely to change underneath you. Buy it if your workflow starts with a list of companies and ends with a sent email. Do not buy it if you need phone numbers, because there are none at any price, or if you need to discover who to contact rather than how to reach them, because that is Apollo's job and not Hunter's.
Read the full Hunter profileAnewstip profile last reviewed 2026-08-23; Hunter last reviewed 2026-08-22. Pricing is compiled from public sources and can change without notice. See our methodology.