Cision
Cision came first in our test with 4.5 out of 5 and beat Muck Rack on every part, including a 5 for compliance. It suits large comms teams that want a database, monitoring and distribution from one vendor.
A PR platform built on a verified journalist database, which found 64 of our 100 journalists and got 41 emails right.
We tested Muck Rack for 7 days in October 2026 by looking up the same 100 journalists we use for every tool in our media databases group. We already knew the right email, phone and beat for each one. Muck Rack scored 2.5 out of 5 overall and ranked third of the 7 tools we tested.
It found 64 of the 100 journalists. Of those, 41 had a valid email, 41 a valid phone number and 38 the right beat and outlet. Half the records we checked were 120 days old or more. That puts it a clear step behind Cision, which came first with 4.5 out of 5.
Muck Rack suits PR teams that want a journalist database, coverage tracking and AI search tools in one place and are happy to buy through sales. If you need listed prices, a trial or near-complete contact data, look at the other options first.
Muck Rack scored 2.5 out of 5 on all five parts, so the parts were even. Each one was held back by a different gap in our results.
Overall score: 2.5 / 5, the average of the five parts, rounded to the nearest half point.
Before you pick Muck Rack, see how all 7 tools ranked in the same test.
Muck Rack is a PR platform. At its heart is a database of journalists and outlets that you search to find the right people to pitch. Around that it adds media monitoring, reporting and AI tools, all in one subscription. The company dates back to 2009.
Its main selling point is verification. Profiles with a green badge are meant for people who meet its full-time journalist criteria, and Muck Rack says an editorial team of over 100 people keeps listings up to date and reviews each one at least once a year. It also watches for job changes through social posts, news and bounced pitches.
That makes it different from free journalist lookups, which cost nothing but have no checked contact data. It sits with the other paid tools in our PR and reputation section.
Muck Rack follows the usual path of a PR campaign, from finding people to reporting on what you got.
1. Search for journalists. Use keyword search and filter by topic, outlet type, location and scope. The AI Search Assistant can turn a plain-language request into a search for you.
2. Build your lists. Save journalists to shared lists, import your own spreadsheets and pick up recommended contacts.
3. Pitch and track. After outreach, Muck Rack monitors coverage and mentions so you can see what landed.
4. Report on results. Dashboards and PR hit scores show how a campaign performed.
Most Muck Rack features are about finding the right journalists and showing the results of your outreach. Some tools are only on higher plans or sold as add-ons.
Search journalists and outlets with their beats and recent coverage. It's on every plan, though Starter limits how many media lists you can export.
Type what you need in plain words and it turns that into a database search, which helps if you're not sure which filters to use.
It recommends journalists for a list and reviews your pitch against that list before you send it.
Badges show which journalists are cited in AI answers, which matters if you want coverage that turns up in AI search.
Suggested contacts and podcast coverage tracking are on the Standard and Premier plans.
Muck Rack gives you a head start on who to pitch, but our test shows you still need to check contacts yourself.
Muck Rack ranked third in our test. Cision came first with 4.5 out of 5 and Agility PR second with 3 out of 5, and both scored higher on coverage. Like Muck Rack, neither publishes prices, so you'll be comparing quotes. Our best media databases list explains the ranking.
Free journalist lookups cost nothing, but you do all the verifying yourself. Muck Rack saves some of that work, though in our test many records still needed fixing.
| Option | Price | How it compares |
|---|---|---|
| Muck Rack | No public price | Verified journalist database with monitoring, reporting and AI search tools. |
| Cision | No public price | Enterprise PR suite with a large media database, monitoring and newswire. |
| Agility PR Solutions | No public price | Media relations and monitoring platform with service-heavy support. |
| Free journalist lookups | Free | You search outlets and bylines yourself, with no checked contact data. |
We tested Muck Rack hands-on from October 24 to October 30, 2026, 7 days in all. Every media database gets the same job: look up a fixed list of 100 journalists where we already know the correct email, phone and beat. The full set-up is in how we test.
Muck Rack found 64 of the 100 journalists. That means about a third of the people we wanted to pitch weren't there at all, so you'd still be hunting for contacts elsewhere.
Next we checked the 64 records it did have against what we knew. 41 had a valid email and 41 a valid phone number, so for roughly one in three journalists it found, a pitch could bounce. 38 had the right beat and outlet, so about four in ten had something out of date or wrong.
Freshness was the other weak spot. The median record was 120 days old, so half the records hadn't been updated in about four months or more. On data sources, opt-out and data policy, Muck Rack passed 5 of our 8 checks.
What surprised us was the gap between the verification pitch and our results. Muck Rack puts its green badge and editorial team at the centre of its story, yet only 41 of the 64 journalists it found had a working email in our test.
| What we measured | Result | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Journalists found out of our 100 | Found 64/100 journalists | You'll find most people you look for, but expect about a third of your list to be missing. |
| Valid emails and phone numbers among journalists found | Valid emails 41/64; phones 41/64 | Around two in three records could be reached, so plan for bounces and wrong numbers. |
| Beats and outlets correct | Beat/company correct 38/64 | About four in ten records had the wrong beat or outlet, so check before you pitch. |
| Data sources, opt-out and privacy law checks | Source/opt-out/data-policy checks 5/8 | It covers some compliance basics, but misses several checks we expect from a contact database. |
Muck Rack does the basics: it found most of our journalists and a fair share of its contact details worked. But a third of our list was missing, about one in three found records had a bad email, and half the records were 120 days old or more. For a tool that leads with verification, we expected tighter data, so plan to check contacts before every campaign.
Tested October 24, 2026 to October 30, 2026.
Muck Rack found 64 of our 100 journalists. That's not complete, but it's a workable base for building a media list, and it placed third of the 7 tools we tested.
Coverage monitoring, dashboards, PR hit scores and AI search tools sit next to the database. If you want to pitch, track and report in one place, that saves switching between tools.
Muck Rack explains how it checks journalists: a green badge, a yearly review of each listing and job-change signals from bounced pitches. You know what the badge is meant to mean.
It couldn't find about a third of our 100 journalists. If your campaign depends on specific reporters, you'll need another way to reach a good share of them.
Only 41 of the 64 journalists it found had a valid email, and only 38 had the right beat and outlet. Half the records were 120 days old or more, which is how these errors build up.
Muck Rack doesn't publish prices. It sells three plans, Starter, Standard and Premier, and quotes each one based on how many users you need and which modules you add. You'll need to talk to sales to get a number. The API is only available on Premier.
Most small PR teams would start with Starter or Standard. Standard adds AI journalist recommendations and podcast monitoring, while Starter limits media list exports, so check that limit before you sign. Premier is for teams that want custom dashboards, AI sentiment and the extra content tools. We checked the pricing page on November 3, 2026.
There's no free plan, and the pricing pages we read don't mention a free trial. The way in is to request a demo.
Muck Rack doesn't publish refund or cancellation terms. Third parties report that it sells on annual commitments, so ask about contract length and how to cancel before you sign.
Add-ons such as print and broadcast monitoring, social listening, press release distribution and the API are priced separately, so ask for them in your quote if you need them.
Prices checked November 3, 2026. Prices can change, so check before you buy.
Muck Rack is a database of journalists, so the main risk is how you use their personal details. The contact data is third-party personal data, and you need to follow rules such as GDPR and CAN-SPAM when you pitch. In our test Muck Rack passed 5 of our 8 checks on data sources, opt-out and data policy, so it doesn't do all of that work for you.
We couldn't find details of security certifications or Muck Rack's own data policy on the pages we read, and we found no reported incidents. If your company needs a security review, ask sales for the paperwork.
The other risk is commercial. Third parties report annual commitments, and Starter limits media list exports, so check the fit before you commit to a year.
Ask which plan includes the exports and AI tools you need before you sign, since Starter limits list exports.
There isn't much user feedback we could check directly. Muck Rack has no reviews on Trustpilot, where its profile is unclaimed (checked November 3, 2026). A third-party site reported that it holds 4.6 out of 5 on G2 from over 350 reviews as of April 2026, but we couldn't read the G2 page or any review text ourselves.
So we can't tell you which features users praise or complain about most. Treat a second-hand rating with some care.
A 4.6 on G2 sits oddly next to our results. Users may value the platform as a whole, including monitoring and reporting, more than raw contact accuracy, which is all our test measured.
Ratings checked November 3, 2026.
Muck Rack ranked third of the 7 media databases we tested. Here's how the others did on the same 100 journalists.
Cision came first in our test with 4.5 out of 5 and beat Muck Rack on every part, including a 5 for compliance. It suits large comms teams that want a database, monitoring and distribution from one vendor.
Agility PR Solutions ranked second with 3 out of 5, scoring higher than Muck Rack on accuracy, coverage, ease of use and value. It suits mid-size teams that want hands-on support and bundled monitoring.
Roxhill tied with Muck Rack at 2.5 out of 5 and ranked fourth. It's a UK-focused database, so it makes most sense for UK agencies and in-house teams.
Listen Notes scored 2 out of 5 and is a podcast search engine rather than a journalist database. It suits developers who want published prices, with a free plan and a Pro plan at $200 a month.
Meltwater scored 2 out of 5, below Muck Rack on accuracy and coverage. It suits PR teams that need news and social monitoring together more than a precise contact list.
Muck Rack is a reasonable choice, but not a standout. It found 64 of our 100 journalists, only 41 of those had a valid email, 38 had the right beat and outlet, and half the records were 120 days old or more. That's why it scored 2.5 out of 5 and placed third of 7, behind Cision and Agility PR Solutions.
To be fair, it does more than hold contacts: monitoring, reporting and AI search tools come in the same platform, and its verification process is clear. If your team wants that all-in-one set-up and is happy to buy through sales, ask for a demo and test it on your own beats first. If contact accuracy is what matters most, a higher-scoring database is the safer bet.
Muck Rack suits PR teams that want database, monitoring and AI tools in one place; teams that need the most accurate contacts should look elsewhere.
Every tool in our media databases test got the same jobs. Our ranking puts the results side by side.
If you use Muck Rack, or work there, and think we got something wrong, email us. Tell us what you saw and attach screenshots if you have them. We'll take another look and update the review if it changes our findings.
Muck Rack doesn't publish prices. It sells Starter, Standard and Premier plans, and each is quoted based on how many users you need and which modules you add. Add-ons such as social listening and the API cost extra. You'll need to talk to sales or book a demo to get a price. We checked its pricing page on November 3, 2026.
We looked up the same list of 100 journalists that we use for every media database, where we already knew the correct email, phone and beat. Over 7 days we counted how many it found, checked whether emails and phones were valid, checked beats and outlets, noted how old records were and ran 8 checks on data sources, opt-out and data policy.
The pricing pages we read don't mention a free trial, and there's no free plan. The usual way to try Muck Rack is to request a demo from its sales team. If you do, ask to search for journalists on your own beats, so you can see how accurate the data is for the people you actually pitch.
Muck Rack gives a green badge to profiles that meet its full-time journalist criteria. It says each listing is reviewed at least once a year and that it watches for job changes through social posts, news and bounced pitches. In our test, though, only 41 of the 64 journalists it found had a valid email.
Yes. The AI Search Assistant turns a plain-language request into a database search, and the AI Media List Agent recommends journalists and reviews your pitch against a list. AI Visibility badges show which journalists are cited in AI answers. Standard and Premier also include AI journalist recommendations, and Premier adds AI sentiment.
Muck Rack doesn't publish the size of its database. It says it makes hundreds of thousands of updates a year with an editorial team of over 100 people. In our test it found 64 of the 100 journalists we looked for, which gives you a rough idea of how complete it is for a typical list.