Prezly 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 assessmentPrezly compared with Qwoted
Also complementary rather than competitive. Qwoted matches experts to reporters working on stories and has a usable free tier for sources, so it is a discovery and placement channel. Prezly has no marketplace and no query feed; it assumes the relationship already exists. The pairing that works is Qwoted to meet journalists and Prezly to keep them, with the Qwoted-sourced contact landing in the Prezly CRM with its history intact.
Choose Prezly if
In-house comms teams, small PR agencies, nonprofits, and brands that already know which journalists they want to reach and need a professional public newsroom plus a shared relationship CRM, particularly European organizations that need EU data processing and ISO 27001 on the paperwork.
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 | Prezly | Qwoted |
|---|---|---|
| Category | PR | PR |
| Starting price | 100 euros per month billed annually (Essential, 1 site, 1 user, 5,000 contacts) (14 days trial) | Free (Basic, 2 pitches per month); Pro listed at $149 per month (free plan available) |
| Pricing model | Flat monthly subscription per plan, gated by number of Sites (newsrooms), number of named users, and contact ceiling. Stories and campaigns are unlimited on every plan. Two published tracks exist, one for brands and in-house teams and one for agencies, plus a custom Enterprise tier. Prices are listed in euros, with annual billing discounted 20 percent against monthly. | 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 | 14 days, no credit card required | No standard time-limited trial; the free Basic plan is the trial |
| Best for | In-house comms teams, small PR agencies, nonprofits, and brands that already know which journalists they want to reach and need a professional public newsroom plus a shared relationship CRM, particularly European organizations that need EU data processing and ISO 27001 on the paperwork. | 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 | A newsroom can be themed, branded, and live in an afternoon; connecting a custom domain and a sending domain over SMTP or IMAP adds DNS work that usually takes a day or two of back and forth with whoever controls the zone. Importing and cleaning an existing contact list is the real timeline, typically a week for a messy spreadsheet. | 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 | Low for anyone who has used a modern CMS and an email tool. The editor is conventional and the CRM is shallow by design. The habit that takes longer is discipline about logging coverage and tagging contacts consistently, because the reporting is only as good as what the team puts in. | 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, Hosted newsrooms on custom domains, Self-hosted Next.js themes (Vercel, Netlify), Mobile-responsive newsroom themes | Web application, Email alerts and daily digest, Mobile web |
| Compliance | GDPR, ISO 27001:2022, Data Processing Agreement published, Public Trust Center | GDPR, CCPA |
| Founded | 2010 | 2018 |
| Headquarters | Leuven, Belgium | New York, New York, United States |
| Ownership | Independent, venture-backed | Majority owned by Vested (financial communications agency), with a strategic investment from Prosek Ventures, the venture arm of Prosek Partners |
Strengths and limitations
Prezly
Strengths
- The newsroom is genuinely good: hosted on your domain, indexable, rich-media, and better looking than most agency-built press pages.
- Contact records carry a full shared engagement history, which turns pitching from a personal address book into a team asset.
- Coverage links back to the specific story and journalist that produced it, so reporting answers causation rather than counting clippings.
- European ownership, EU data processing, a published DPA, a Trust Center, and ISO 27001:2022 certification clear privacy reviews that stall US-hosted rivals.
Limitations
- No built-in media database. If you do not already know who to pitch, Prezly will not tell you; the curated list building service is a paid, human-delivered alternative.
- Seat limits are tight and hard: one user on Essential and two on Standard, so a four person comms team is already outside the published brand tiers.
- Contact ceilings of 5,000 and 10,000 are enforced caps, not soft targets, and a merged legacy list can trigger an upgrade on volume alone.
- No wire distribution or syndication; the release lives on your newsroom and in the inboxes you send to, and nowhere else.
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
Prezly
Flat monthly subscription per plan, gated by number of Sites (newsrooms), number of named users, and contact ceiling. Stories and campaigns are unlimited on every plan. Two published tracks exist, one for brands and in-house teams and one for agencies, plus a custom Enterprise tier. Prices are listed in euros, with annual billing discounted 20 percent against monthly.
- Essential100 euros
- Standard250 euros
- Agency Essential300 euros
- Agency Standard450 euros
- Enterprise (and Agency Custom)Custom
Priced against a media database platform, Prezly looks reasonable: Cision-class contracts start in the thousands per month and are quote-only, while Prezly publishes its numbers and sells on a card. Priced against a website and an email tool, it looks expensive, because 100 euros a month for one seat buys capability a Ghost site plus a Mailchimp list could approximate for a fraction of that. The honest read is that you are paying for the join: a release, the contacts who got it, and the coverage it produced, all in one record. If your PR programme is real enough to need that join, the price is fair; if you publish four releases a year to a list of thirty, it is not.
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
Prezly
Prezly is the PR platform for teams that already know who to call. It skips the media database entirely, which disqualifies it for anyone whose real problem is discovery, and spends its effort instead on the two things database vendors treat as afterthoughts: a genuinely well-built public newsroom on your own domain, and a coverage record that ties each earned article back to the story and the relationship that caused it. The European posture is a concrete commercial advantage, with EU processing and ISO 27001:2022 clearing privacy reviews that stall US-hosted competitors, and the open source Next.js themes and documented API make it the most extensible product in a category that usually offers none. The constraints are equally concrete: one user at 100 euros, two at 250, hard contact ceilings, white-labelling and your own sending domain both behind the Standard plan, single sign-on behind an Enterprise quote, and no wire syndication anywhere. Buy it if your announcements are frequent enough and your media relationships real enough that the join between story, contact, and coverage is worth paying for. If you are still building the list, buy the list first.
Read the full Prezly 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 profilePrezly 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.