Muck Rack vs Cision vs JournoFinder, Media Databases Compared
Muck Rack and Cision are the two names that come up most when a PR team goes shopping for a media database. Here’s how they compare, and how JournoFinder works as a more modern alternative.
Is Muck Rack or Cision better?
- Cision is best for enterprise-level customers who need a full comms suite with wire distribution, media monitoring across print and online, and a journalist database.
- Muck Rack is best for teams that want a user-friendly tool that covers both outreach and media monitoring.
- JournoFinder is best if your focus is outreach and you want an affordable, fully AI-integrated tool that makes building targeted and up-to-date media lists quick and easy.
Muck Rack vs Cision vs JournoFinder at a glance
Swipe to see all columns
| Capability | Muck Rack | Cision | JournoFinder |
|---|---|---|---|
| How you find journalists | Boolean search, with AI Agents bolted on | Search and filters, with AI keyword suggestions | Describe the story and an AI agent builds the list |
| AI list building | Standard plan and above | No. Not offered | Yes. Every paid plan |
| How the data gets updated | Aims to update each profile annually | Human research team updated on a review cycle | Continuously, as journalists publish |
| When email addresses are checked | On the research team's update cycle | On the research team's update cycle | In real time as journalists are added to lists |
| Runs inside Claude and ChatGPT | No. No | No. No | Yes. Yes, full MCP integration* |
| Journalist requests | Inbound Media Manager, Premier plan only | No. Not offered | Yes. Instant alerts to relevant journalist requests |
| Breaking news alerts | No. Not offered | No. Not offered | Yes. Yes, with angles and a one click media list |
| Media monitoring | Online, with print, broadcast and social as paid add-ons | Online, print, broadcast, social | Not offered |
| Wire distribution | GlobeNewswire, paid add-on | PR Newswire | Not offered |
| Price | From around $5,000 a year (reported), roughly $415 a month | Around $12,625 a year (reported median), roughly $1,050 a month | From $119 a month |
| Published pricing | No. No, quote only | No. No, quote only | Yes. Yes, on the pricing page |
| Contract | Annual | Annual | Monthly or annual |
| Free trial | No. Demo only | No. Demo only | Yes. 7 days |
Sources: vendor pricing and plan pages, correct as of September 2026. *MCP connector included with annual plans.
Describe your story, get a media list
No manual work, no irrelevant contacts
Muck Rack vs Cision vs JournoFinder feature comparison
Cision is the bigger platform with strong monitoring features across print, broadcast, online and social. They also offer wire distribution through PR Newswire and a journalist database. Muck Rack is easier to use and more streamlined. Muck Rack offers a media database plus monitoring and reporting features.
JournoFinder focuses on the database and outreach features, with an AI Agent that builds media lists, reactive news alerts and MCP integration.
Muck Rack vs Cision vs JournoFinder on database quality
Cision’s weakest point is the media database quality, with users often complaining of finding outdated contacts. Muck Rack’s data is better maintained than Cision’s, but users still report high bounce rates. JournoFinder’s database is continually updated in real time and every email is verified, giving it the best quality data.
Cision
Cision has over 500,000 media profiles across 225 countries. A research team keeps them up to date and each profile also tells you how that journalist prefers to be pitched.
The problem is that a research team can only get around half a million records so often, journalists change roles quickly and swap beats even faster. A static database that isn’t auto updating is going to be out of date within a couple of weeks.
This shows up in Cision’s reviews on Capterra where users say they often find journalists who have left the outlet, and that smaller regional titles aren’t covered well.
Muck Rack
Muck Rack lets journalists maintain their own profiles. They get a free portfolio page, and in return they keep their beat, outlet and contact details current, however this relies on journalists actually logging in and making changes which doesn’t always happen.
Muck Rack’s editorial team reviews listings as well, but they only aim to check every one at least once a year which means contacts can be sitting outdated for months at a time.
G2’s review summary flags data inaccuracy as one of the most mentioned complaints, with outdated journalist details and poor international coverage both called out, and users on Capterra say emails often bounce.
JournoFinder
JournoFinder’s database is continuously updated in real time so no one is ever sitting in a queue waiting to be updated.
New journalists are added as soon as they publish, job changes are monitored, journalists who are no longer writing are removed, and beats are refreshed on an ongoing basis.
Every email is reverified at the point of being added to a media list, so you can trust that you will never be sending to an outdated email that’s going to bounce.
Muck Rack vs Cision vs JournoFinder on media list building
Cision and Muck Rack both rely on keyword searches and filtering to build media lists. Muck Rack does offer some AI tools such as the Search Agent to aid with list building, but they still sit on top of the outdated Boolean searching functionality.
JournoFinder’s AI Agent will build your media list from a draft pitch and checks every journalist against your brief before adding them.
Cision
You build a list in Cision by keyword searching and filtering. You can search by journalist name, outlet, beat, language or the area they cover, then narrow the results down using the filters. This kind of searching is outdated and results in lots of irrelevant results showing up that you have to filter through yourself.
Cision’s AI suggests keywords to help you search, but there’s no agent that builds the list for you so everything is still very manual.
Muck Rack
Muck Rack has a Search Agent and a Media List Agent, but both are only available on Standard plans and above. On the Starter plan you still have to manually search the database and filter the results yourself.
The Search Agent will help you write search queries, and the Media List Agent will filter the search results for you and suggest which journalists to add or remove.
Both the AI tools sit on top of Muck Rack’s traditional Boolean search, which is keyword based. This means the search will often return irrelevant journalists because they happen to mention your keyword once in a random article. It can also miss journalists who have used alternative phrasing.
JournoFinder
JournoFinder has a few ways for you to build media lists. The most efficient option is the AI Agent, who is trained on using the full verified database to build a targeted media list from a draft pitch or a description of the story you’re pitching.
The Agent will search live news as well as using JournoFinder’s semantic topic based searching to ensure a full researched list.
Every journalist the Agent finds gets checked against your brief, their recent articles, the topics they cover, and the angle you’re pitching. If the journalist is a match, the Agent will add them to your list along with its reasoning.
Once the list is built, you can chat with the Agent to refine the list, expanding it, removing people, or segmenting the list in any way you want. The Agent can inspect any journalist further and do a deep dive into their profile for you.
JournoFinder also offers manual searching options to build media lists such as the Live Google News search.
Muck Rack vs Cision vs JournoFinder on AI features and integration
Cision’s AI features are focused on the monitoring and reporting side of their platform. Muck Rack spreads its AI features across pitching, list building and coverage, though the strongest AI features are only available on higher-tier plans. Neither documents an MCP integration.
JournoFinder’s AI Agent for building media lists is available on all plans. JournoFinder also offers an MCP for AI integration.
Cision
Cision’s AI tools are aimed at monitoring and reporting.
AI Coverage Analysis, launched in June 2026, reads your coverage and tells you what it means and what to do next. The AI Visibility Dashboard was launched in July 2026 and tracks how often your brand is mentioned in answers from ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude.
There’s also a chat assistant for finding things in your coverage, AI summaries of what’s been written about you, and an AI pitch writer that turns a rough message into a finished email with subject lines.
Muck Rack
Muck Rack has a few AI features including Search Agent that helps you form search queries for media list building, PressPal.ai for writing pitches, a Media Brief Assistant that writes you a briefing document before an interview, and AI Visibility Badges that show which journalists and outlets get quoted most in AI answers.
Generative Pulse tracks how ChatGPT and other models describe your brand, however it’s only available on the Premier plan.
Muck Rack offers an API to Premier customers, but you need a developer to build anything with it and it’s only article data, not journalist data.
JournoFinder
JournoFinder’s AI Agent can help with every part of a campaign. It comes up with angles, builds your media lists, finds reactive opportunities when a story breaks, and researches individual journalists before you pitch them.
You tell it what you’re working on in plain English and it does the searching for you.
JournoFinder also offers an MCP, which means you can connect JournoFinder to tools like Claude or ChatGPT.
Instead of building media lists within the JournoFinder interface, you can build them in the tools you’re already working with. Media list building, reactive PR, journalist requests and the ideas database are all available through the MCP.
You can also use it to set up PR workflows that run without you.
For example you could have Claude check the morning’s journalist requests and draft a response to any that fit your client. Or you could hand it a story and have it build the media list, then write a personalised pitch for every journalist on it.
Muck Rack vs Cision vs JournoFinder on media monitoring
Cision has the strongest monitoring, covering print, broadcast, online and social in one platform. Muck Rack monitors online on every plan but charges extra for print, broadcast and social. JournoFinder doesn’t offer monitoring.
Cision
Monitoring is what Cision does best. It covers print, broadcast, online and social, using Brandwatch for the social listening, and the reports are built for teams who have to show share of voice to a board.
If measuring coverage is a big part of your job, Cision is a good option.
Muck Rack
Muck Rack monitors online coverage on every plan and adds podcast monitoring from Standard upwards. Print, broadcast and social listening aren’t in any plan. They’re add-ons, alongside press release distribution and the API, which is Premier only.
Reporting works the same way. Starter and Standard get template dashboards and automated sentiment scoring. Custom dashboards, AI sentiment, automatic theme and spokesperson tagging and Generative Pulse, which tracks how a brand shows up in AI answers, are all Premier.
JournoFinder
JournoFinder doesn’t offer media monitoring.
Muck Rack vs Cision vs JournoFinder on ease of use and support
Cision is often called clunky and bloated, and reports suggest that support can take weeks to reply. Muck Rack is easier to use and support is generally good. JournoFinder is built with simplicity in mind and offers human support to every customer.
Cision
Cision is well known for having a big learning curve. It’s a large platform with a lot of different features and Capterra reviewers say it has become clunky, outdated, and bloated.
The support doesn’t have a good reputation with users reporting not getting any reply from Cision for weeks at a time.
Muck Rack
Muck Rack is easier to learn and its support has a good reputation.
What you get depends on your plan. On Starter you set the tool up yourself and share a customer success team with everyone else. On standard plans and above you get a dedicated contact and a live onboarding session.
JournoFinder
JournoFinder is designed to be very simple to use and there is extensive help documentation if needed. Everyone is also offered a live demo upon signing up but many customers onboard successfully without it. For team plans, live training sessions are available.
JournoFinder offers human support, so you always get a quick answer from someone who knows the product.
Features JournoFinder offers that Muck Rack and Cision don’t
Three features JournoFinder has that Muck Rack or Cision don’t.
Reactive alerts
We watch the news and alert you when a story breaks that your client can comment on, with the journalists covering it.
Journalist requests
We aggregate journalist requests from across the web in real time and alert you instantly when there's a match.
MCP
Build lists, check requests and catch breaking stories inside Claude, ChatGPT, or any MCP enabled tool.
Muck Rack vs Cision vs JournoFinder pricing
Swipe to see all columns
| Capability | Muck Rack | Cision | JournoFinder |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published on the site | No. No | No. No | Yes. Yes |
| Entry price | Reported from about $5,000 a year | Reported median $12,625 a year | $119 a month billed annually, $189 monthly |
| Contract | Annual | Annual | Yes. None, cancel anytime |
| Free trial | No. Demo only | No. Demo only | Yes. 7 days |
| Paid add-ons | Six, listed on their pricing page | Wire, charged per release | Yes. None* |
Neither Cision nor Muck Rack publish a price and both require an annual contract. Reported figures put Cision at a median of $12,625 a year and Muck Rack from around $5,000. JournoFinder starts at $119 a month.
Sources: JournoFinder pricing, Vendr procurement data, Muck Rack pricing page. *MCP connector included with annual plans.
How much does Cision cost?
Cision publishes no prices and quotes each customer after a demo. Vendr’s procurement data across 106 purchases puts the median contract at $12,625 a year. PR Newswire distribution is charged per release on top of that.
How much does Muck Rack cost?
Muck Rack doesn’t publish prices. Vendr puts small team contracts between $10,000 and $25,000 a year, and reported figures start around $5,000. One Reddit user said Muck Rack were cracking down on shared accounts and they were quoted $34,000 for a team of 12 users.
Their pricing page lists six things you pay extra for on top of your plan. Print and broadcast monitoring, social listening, press release distribution and the API are all add-ons, so often the plan price isn’t the price you end up paying.
How much does JournoFinder cost?
One seat is $119 a month billed annually, or $189 monthly. Three seats are $229 a month annually. The prices are on the site, you sign up online, and there’s no contract and no quote to wait for.
JournoFinder, the modern media database
- An AI agent that builds your media lists
- Works inside Claude and ChatGPT
- Updated in real time
What people say about Cision
Cision’s media monitoring is strong
Monitoring is the strongest part of Cision. Cision tracks coverage across print, broadcast, online and social, and it owns PR Newswire, so monitoring, distribution and reporting all sit in one platform.
The reviewers who rate Cision highest are the ones measuring coverage, with one CMO on Capterra calling it the best media and social listening tool they’ve used.
Sources: Capterra, Cision reviews
Cision’s database is out of date
The number one complaint about Cision is an outdated database.
Cision’s contacts are maintained by a research team working through the database on a review cycle, and that cycle doesn’t keep up with newsrooms where journalists can change beat or outlet within a couple of weeks.
Agencies using Cision report contacts missing or wrong, and one PR pro puts it more bluntly, saying Cision “is honestly always so out of date.”
Sources: r/PublicRelations, journalist databases, r/PublicRelations, Muck Rack alternatives
Cision is clunky and support is slow
Cision has grown through multiple acquisitions and the platform carries all of it. Capterra reviewers describe Cision as clunky, outdated and bloated, with a search function they call needlessly complicated. Support is the other complaint that keeps coming up.
Reviewers report chasing several times before hearing anything back, and an ex-employee posting in July 2026 says Cision’s US based support team was part of this year’s cuts.
Sources: Capterra, Cision reviews, r/PublicRelations, Cision layoffs
What people say about Muck Rack
Muck Rack is easy to pick up
Ease of use is the thing reviewers mention most about Muck Rack with lots of G2 reviewers calling it out. Muck Rack was built as a modern web app rather than an enterprise suite, so there’s less of it to learn.
Sources: G2, Muck Rack reviews
Muck Rack’s keyword search is outdated
Muck Rack’s journalist database is searched with keywords and Boolean strings, so it can return journalists who used your phrase once in passing and miss the ones covering your subject in different words.
G2 reviewers rank inconsistent search, exact spelling and irrelevant results among their biggest complaints about Muck Rack. One reviewer says it can be difficult to filter out unrelated coverage.
Sources: G2, Muck Rack reviews, Muck Rack, Curation Engine, TrustRadius, Muck Rack reviews
Muck Rack’s AI features are add-ons
Most of Muck Rack’s AI sits above the plan you’re likely to be on with one review stating “I know Muck Rack has new AI and analysis features, but they all seem to be priced as add-ons to our base subscription.”
Search Agent and Media List Agent need Standard or above, and Generative Pulse is Premier only. Curation Engine, the AI that sorts your coverage reports, goes to Brand Premier and Media Intelligence customers.
Sources: Muck Rack, add-ons, r/PublicRelations
What people say about JournoFinder
JournoFinder is simple to work in
Ease of use comes up in most JournoFinder reviews. Reviewers describe JournoFinder as straightforward from the first session and one user calls the interface for building lists “very intuitive and clear”.
Sources: JournoFinder testimonials
JournoFinder builds relevant lists in less time
Reviewers say that JournoFinder’s media lists are targeted and quick to build. JournoFinder’s Agent checks each journalist against your brief before adding them, so there’s less to cut afterwards.
Olivia Smith, founder of Northbound PR, says her list building is more efficient, with more relevant journalists and cleaner data. One user says the MCP builds a bespoke list inside Claude or ChatGPT “with one prompt”, saving hours of work.
Sources: JournoFinder testimonials
JournoFinder’s database is well maintained
The database updates continuously rather than on a review cycle, so things like job changes are picked up as they happen and bounce backs are rare. Carl Borg, founder of One PR, says that on the rare occasion a contact is missing, the team finds it fast.
Sources: JournoFinder testimonials
FAQ
Does Muck Rack or Cision have an MCP?
Which is cheaper, Muck Rack or Cision?
Do Muck Rack and Cision offer a free trial?
Which media database has the most up to date contacts?
What's the best media database for a small agency or a freelancer?
Who should buy Cision?
Who should buy Muck Rack?
Who should buy JournoFinder?
Pay less. Pitch better. Work faster.
See what the agent builds for your next story.
7 days free. From $119 a month.
Muck Rack is a trademark of Muck Rack, LLC. Cision is a trademark of Cision Ltd. This page is a comparison only. JournoFinder has no affiliation with, and no endorsement from, Muck Rack or Cision.