Pressfarm vs Qwoted
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 assessmentQwoted compared with Pressfarm
Pressfarm sells a media database plus done-for-you asset creation, press releases, and pitch writing on a package basis, aimed at founders who do not want to do the work. Qwoted sells access to a live marketplace and expects you to write your own pitches. If you have nothing prepared and no time, Pressfarm's productized service does more for you. If you can write a decent three-paragraph answer to a reporter's question, Qwoted converts better per hour spent and its free tier means you can find out before paying.
Choose Pressfarm if
Early-stage startups and small companies with a single launch or funding announcement, no in-house PR person, and a few hundred dollars rather than a monthly retainer: it buys finished content, a targeted list, and outbound pitching as a one-time purchase.
Choose Qwoted if
Founders, consultants, and subject matter experts in business, finance, technology, and health who want to earn quotes in real publications, plus small PR agencies that need a source-request channel and a shared reporting view without an enterprise media database contract.
Side by side
13 attributes| Attribute | Pressfarm | Qwoted |
|---|---|---|
| Category | PR | PR |
| Starting price | $280 one-time (Launch package) | Free (Basic, 2 pitches per month); Pro listed at $149 per month (free plan available) |
| Pricing model | One-time package pricing. There is no subscription, no retainer, and no per-seat fee. Each package is a fixed bundle of content, list building, distribution, and outreach volume, and every package includes twelve months of media database access with a capped number of contact unlocks. Extra work means buying another package. | Per-account subscription for sources and PR professionals, metered by monthly pitch credits. Journalists use the platform free. The free Basic plan keeps your profile searchable but caps you at two pitches a month and delays new requests by two hours; Pro removes the delay and adds the research features; Teams is quoted for multi-seat accounts. |
| Free plan | No | Basic: 2 pitch credits per month, 2 hour delay on new opportunities, profile stays in the journalist-searchable database, real-time alerts and daily opportunity email included |
| Free trial | No | No standard time-limited trial; the free Basic plan is the trial |
| Best for | Early-stage startups and small companies with a single launch or funding announcement, no in-house PR person, and a few hundred dollars rather than a monthly retainer: it buys finished content, a targeted list, and outbound pitching as a one-time purchase. | Founders, consultants, and subject matter experts in business, finance, technology, and health who want to earn quotes in real publications, plus small PR agencies that need a source-request channel and a shared reporting view without an enterprise media database contract. |
| Setup time | Minutes to purchase, then an intake questionnaire that realistically takes one to two hours to complete well. Deliverables and outreach follow over the days and weeks after that, with directory submissions alone taking up to 14 business days for review and acceptance. | Under an hour to a working account. The profile, biography, headshot, and expertise tags are the only setup, and there is nothing to install or integrate. Getting the tags right matters more than getting them fast. |
| Learning curve | Essentially none on the service side, since the work is done for you. The database interface is simple: search by niche or publication, spend credits to unlock. The judgment that matters is upstream, deciding whether you actually have news worth pitching, and Pressfarm cannot make that call for you. | Low mechanically, real in practice. The skill is writing a pitch a journalist can paste: lead with the quotable line, keep it to a few short paragraphs, include credentials and a photo, and hit send within the first hour. Sources who treat the credit as scarce outperform those who spend all thirty five. |
| Platforms | Web application, Email and live chat for service delivery | Web application, Email alerts and daily digest, Mobile web |
| Compliance | GDPR (data processing clause published) | GDPR, CCPA |
| Founded | 2015 | 2018 |
| Headquarters | Canada | New York, New York, United States |
| Ownership | Independent, privately held | Majority owned by Vested (financial communications agency), with a strategic investment from Prosek Ventures, the venture arm of Prosek Partners |
Strengths and limitations
Pressfarm
Strengths
- One-time pricing with no contract, which fits the actual shape of startup news: bursty, event-driven, and hard to justify as a monthly line item.
- Buys labor rather than access, so the deliverables exist whether or not anyone on the team knows how to write a press release.
- Entry price under $300 puts real done-for-you PR within reach of a company that could not otherwise consider it.
- The guest post placed in a Google News indexed outlet and the directory backlinks are durable search assets that outlive the news cycle.
Limitations
- Pressfarm's own site publishes three conflicting price lists simultaneously (pricing page, FAQ, enterprise services page), including packages such as Starter and Power that no longer appear at checkout; this is the clearest signal that site maintenance lags the product.
- No CSV export of contacts, stated as permanent policy, so the database cannot feed your own outreach tooling and everything must be worked inside the platform.
- No country filter. Contacts are filtered only by job interest and publication, and coverage is concentrated in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, which limits usefulness for a company targeting continental Europe, LATAM, or Asia.
- Database size claims are inconsistent between one million plus contacts on most pages and 50,000 plus in the site's own structured FAQ data, so treat the headline number cautiously.
Qwoted
Strengths
- The strongest remaining source-request marketplace after Connectively shut down in December 2024, with real journalists from national business and finance outlets posting requests.
- Discoverability is free: profiles stay searchable by reporters on every plan, so the inbound half of the product costs nothing.
- Unusually strong in business, finance, and fintech beats, a direct consequence of being built by financial communications firms.
- Pitch intelligence gives a measurable open and reply rate, which almost nothing else in earned media does at this price.
Limitations
- Purely reactive: there is no way to pitch a publication that has not posted a request, so campaign timing is not yours to control.
- The free plan's two hour delay is decisive on competitive requests, which regularly close before a Basic user can respond.
- Thirty five Pro credits a month is a real ceiling for anyone managing several clients or spokespeople, and pushes agencies toward a quoted Teams contract.
- Backlinks are unreliable; major outlets nofollow or omit source links, so buying this as an SEO tool sets the wrong expectation.
Pricing compared
Pressfarm
One-time package pricing. There is no subscription, no retainer, and no per-seat fee. Each package is a fixed bundle of content, list building, distribution, and outreach volume, and every package includes twelve months of media database access with a capped number of contact unlocks. Extra work means buying another package.
- Launch$280
- Campaign$480
- Enterprise$1,080
Priced against the alternatives, Pressfarm sits in a genuinely underserved gap. A retainer agency starts in the thousands per month, a media database subscription costs low four figures a year and still leaves the writing and sending to you, and a wire service distributes but does not pitch anyone. Under $500 for a written release, a designed media kit, a hand-built list of 2,000 contacts, and someone actually pitching 100 journalists is hard to assemble any other way at that price. The honest counterweight is that outcomes vary with the newsworthiness of your story and the executive assigned, there is no trial to de-risk the first purchase, and the database allowance runs out. Treat it as buying a competent freelancer's launch week, not as buying coverage.
Qwoted
Per-account subscription for sources and PR professionals, metered by monthly pitch credits. Journalists use the platform free. The free Basic plan keeps your profile searchable but caps you at two pitches a month and delays new requests by two hours; Pro removes the delay and adds the research features; Teams is quoted for multi-seat accounts.
- Basic$0
- Pro$149
- TeamsCustom
The free plan is the most interesting thing about the pricing, because discoverability is not gated behind it: a well-built free profile can earn coverage without a single pitch credit being spent. Pro at $149 list is expensive against two plausible comparisons, a $99 a month competitor with a similar model and simply spending the time on direct outreach, and the honest test is whether thirty five credits a month convert into more than one placement you would otherwise have missed. For agencies the Teams tier is easier to justify because reporting is the billable artifact. For a solo expert, start free, tag the profile properly, and upgrade only when the two-credit cap is visibly costing you opportunities.
Editorial verdict on each
Pressfarm
Pressfarm occupies a gap that most of this category ignores: the founder who has one piece of real news, no publicist, and no way to justify a retainer or an annual platform subscription. Under $500 for a written press release, a designed media kit, a media list built by a person for your specific story, and someone pitching a hundred journalists is not assemblable any other way at that price, and the year of database access plus the Google News guest post keep returning value after the announcement passes. The reservations are equally concrete. There is no trial, so the first purchase is on faith; the database cannot be exported and cannot be filtered by country; the entry package neither writes your release nor pitches anyone, which the tier names obscure; and the company's own site publishes three different price lists at once, which does not inspire confidence in operational tidiness. Buy it as a competent freelancer's launch week at a fixed price, with the understanding that no productized service can make an unremarkable announcement newsworthy, and pair it with a monitoring tool if you want to know what the campaign actually produced.
Read the full Pressfarm profileQwoted
Qwoted is the sensible default in a category that lost its default when Connectively closed. The two-sided mechanics work, the request supply in business and finance beats is real, and pitch intelligence gives you an honest number for a channel that usually runs on anecdote. The best argument for it is the free plan, which keeps your profile searchable by journalists without charging you anything, so inbound placements can happen before you ever swipe a card. The arguments against it are worth taking seriously: $149 list for thirty five credits is steep next to cheaper rivals, the platform is entirely reactive so you cannot run a campaign on your own schedule, backlinks are not something you should count on, and Teams pricing is quote-only. Build a properly tagged free profile first, measure how often relevant requests appear in your actual beat, and upgrade only when the two-credit cap is demonstrably the thing standing between you and coverage.
Read the full Qwoted profilePressfarm profile last reviewed 2026-08-23; Qwoted last reviewed 2026-08-23. Pricing is compiled from public sources and can change without notice. See our methodology.