# LinkBronze (llms-full)
> Full article text for AI ingestion. Canonical site: https://linkbronze.com/

## Ahrefs vs Semrush vs Moz for Link Building: Which Data Actually Finds Links
https://linkbronze.com/articles/ahrefs-vs-semrush-vs-moz/

LinkBronze › Guides › Ahrefs vs Semrush vs Moz Ahrefs vs Semrush vs Moz for Link Building: Which Data Actually Finds Links 2026-07-09 · 7 min read · Link Building We are not affiliated with Ahrefs, Semrush, or Moz and earn nothing if you subscribe to any of them. LinkBronze sells a managed link package, and that bias is disclosed up front. In short: Ahrefs, Semrush, and Moz tested against the jobs that matter in link building: prospecting, vetting, and monitoring. Where each index shines, and which one small sites should pay for. None of these tools build links. They point at pages worth asking, show you which asks your competitors already won, and warn you when something you earned quietly disappears. That is the entire job. So the comparison that matters is not whose feature list runs longest; it is whose index and workflow save the most hours per placement actually won. This guide compares Ahrefs, Semrush, and Moz strictly on link-building work, nothing else, and it assumes a small site with a real budget rather than an agency with twelve seats. Prices quoted are vendor list prices as of mid 2026 and move around; check the pricing pages before committing to anything annual. The four jobs a link builder hires a tool for Strip away the dashboards and link building needs exactly four things from software: Prospecting: finding pages and sites where an ask, a pitch, or a placement makes sense. Vetting: judging whether a site is real: organic traffic, topical fit, and outbound link patterns that do not scream marketplace. Gap analysis: seeing who links to your competitors but not to you, which is the highest-yield prospect list in the discipline. Monitoring: knowing when links you earned or paid for get removed, de-indexed, or switched to nofollow. A tool earns its subscription by being strong at these four. Everything else is decoration. Ahrefs: the index link builders default to Ask working link builders which backlink data they trust first and the most common answer is still Ahrefs, mainly on freshness: its crawler is among the most active on the web, so new links and dead links show up quickly. For the four jobs, the kit is direct. Site Explorer profiles any domain's links in seconds. Link Intersect is the classic gap tool: show me sites linking to two competitors but not to me. Best by Links reveals which content formats in a niche actually attract links, and the broken-link report turns competitor rot into prospect lists. Its Domain Rating (DR) metric has become the default currency of outreach marketplaces, which cuts both ways: everyone quotes it, so link sellers optimize for it, sometimes with schemes built purely to inflate it. Treat DR as a first filter, never as proof. The genuine weakness for this use case: no built-in outreach, so pitching happens in a separate tool or a spreadsheet. Semrush: the workflow suite Semrush claims the largest raw backlink database of the three, and its real differentiator for link work is workflow rather than index bragging rights. The Backlink Gap tool compares up to five domains at once and filters cleanly by authority and follow status. Unique among the three, Semrush ships a built-in Link Building Tool: it assembles a prospect list from your keywords and competitors, then runs outreach from inside the platform, with connected mailbox, statuses, and follow-ups, like a small CRM bolted onto the index. For a solo operator who hates juggling tools, that pipeline can matter more than a marginally fresher crawl. Practitioner opinion generally puts Semrush's link data slightly behind Ahrefs on freshness, and its Authority Score has the same caveat as every vendor metric. But if outreach happens in-house at any volume, Semrush replaces two subscriptions with one. Moz: the metric that outlived the toolset Moz invented the metric everyone still quotes: Domain Authority. Two decades on, DA remains the number cited in a huge share of link sale listings, guest post marketplaces, and agency reports, which makes Moz's Link Explorer genuinely useful for speaking the market's language. Spam Score adds a quick red-flag check on shady profiles, and the entry price, about $99 a month at list as of mid 2026, is the lowest of the three. The honest limits: Moz's index is widely regarded as slower to refresh than Ahrefs or Semrush, and its prospecting workflows are thinner. As a reporting and sanity-check tool it holds up. As the primary weapon for aggressive link acquisition, it trails the other two. The metric trap: DR, AS, and DA are not Google All three headline metrics, Domain Rating, Authority Score, and Domain Authority, are estimates each vendor computes from its own crawl. Google uses none of them and has said so for years. That would be harmless trivia except that links are priced by these numbers, so entire schemes exist to inflate them: a DR 60 site with no organic traffic is a stage prop, not an asset. Vet every prospect on three things the metrics cannot fake together: real organic traffic in the tool's own estimate, topical relevance to your site, and outbound linking that looks editorial rather than transactional. Side by side for link building Tool Entry list price (mid 2026) Link metric Standout for links Weak spot Ahrefs About $129 a month DR (Domain Rating) Index freshness, Link Intersect, broken-link prospecting No built-in outreach Semrush About $140 a month AS (Authority Score) Backlink Gap plus a built-in outreach CRM Link freshness generally rated behind Ahrefs Moz About $99 a month DA (Domain Authority) DA is the market's shared language; Spam Score; price Slower index, thinnest prospecting Which one should a small site pay for If you are buying one subscription for serious link work, buy Ahrefs: the freshest picture of who links to whom is the core asset, and every workflow downstream depends on it. If your outreach happens in-house and volume matters, price Semrush against the combination of Ahrefs plus a separate outreach tool; the bundled pipeline often wins that math. Choose Moz when budget rules, when reporting in DA is required because clients and sellers speak it, or as the cheap second opinion on a suspicious profile. And consider the pattern vendors never suggest: subscribe for one month, harvest and vet a quarter's worth of prospects, cancel, and spend the remaining budget on the links themselves. A small site needs a handful of good placements a quarter, not a permanent software bill. The tools find the doors; knocking is still the expensive part. Frequently asked questions Is Ahrefs or Semrush better for link building? For pure link prospecting and vetting, most practitioners favor Ahrefs for index freshness and its Link Intersect workflow. Semrush counters with a built-in outreach and CRM pipeline that Ahrefs lacks, so teams running outreach in-house sometimes get more done end to end inside Semrush. What do Ahrefs, Semrush, and Moz cost in 2026? As of mid 2026, entry plans list at roughly $129 a month for Ahrefs, about $140 a month for Semrush Pro, and about $99 a month for Moz Pro, before annual discounts. All three change prices and usage limits regularly, so confirm on the vendor pricing pages. Are DR, Authority Score, and DA real Google metrics? No. Domain Rating, Authority Score, and Domain Authority are estimates each vendor calculates from its own index. Google uses none of them. They are useful shorthand, but all three can be inflated by link schemes, so vet sites with organic traffic and topical relevance too. Do I need any of these tools to buy good links? No. You need live URLs, evidence the linking site has real organic traffic, and topical fit, all of which a vendor who shows their work should hand you. Tools make verification faster; they do not replace the vetting questions. If you would rather buy verified placements than software subscriptions, that is the gap LinkBronze exists to fill: one fixed-scope package, editorially placed links, live URLs delivered so you can run every check in this guide against them. The scope and price are in the package details . Keep reading Earned Media HARO Alternatives in 2026: Qwoted vs Featured vs Source of Sources Link Building Buying Backlinks in 2026: Fiverr vs Marketplaces vs Agencies, With Real Price Data Link Building PBN vs Niche Edits vs a Managed Package: What Is Safe for a Small Site?

## PBN vs Niche Edits vs a Managed Package: What Is Safe for a Small Site?
https://linkbronze.com/articles/pbn-vs-niche-edits-vs-managed-links/

PBN vs Niche Edits vs a Managed Package: What Is Safe for a Small Site? 2026-07-07 · 9 min read In short: The three ways small sites buy links, ranked by risk: PBNs, niche edits, and managed editorial packages. What each costs, what can go wrong, and the questions that expose a bad vendor. Every small-site owner who types “buy backlinks” meets the same three doors. Door one: private blog networks, cheap and confident. Door two: niche edits, links inserted into existing posts on real sites. Door three: managed editorial packages, the expensive-sounding one. This guide walks through what is actually behind each door, what it costs, and which failure modes are survivable for a site you cannot afford to burn. One rule frames everything: a link is worth what the linking page is worth. Every scheme below is a different answer to the question of where that page comes from. Door one: PBNs, the rented ranking A private blog network is a set of sites that exist to sell links: expired domains with leftover authority, refilled with thin content, cross-armored to look independent. PBN links are cheap because the inventory is manufactured, and they often do move rankings at first, which is exactly what keeps the market alive. The problem is structural. A network has a footprint: shared infrastructure, similar templates, outbound link patterns that no real site would have. Search engines get better at footprints every year, and when a network is discounted, every link it sold stops counting, silently or worse. You do not get a refund, and you may get a manual action. For a hobby site running an experiment, that is a lesson. For the site that pays your rent, it is a fire. The tell: vendors who quote large volumes instantly, publish no site list without an NDA-style dance, and price per 10 links instead of per placement. Door two: niche edits, the gray middle A niche edit inserts your link into an existing, already-indexed post on a real site. On paper this is attractive: the page has age, sometimes traffic, and the link sits in editorial context. In practice, quality spans from genuinely good to indistinguishable from a PBN, because the same marketplaces sell both. The whole game is vetting the host site. Real organic traffic, a topic actually adjacent to yours, an owner who says no to some requests: those are the good signs. A “guest post site list” with 4,000 rows, identical DA-badge screenshots, and $30 flat pricing is the bad sign. Assume any site that sells insertions casually is selling them to everyone, including the neighborhoods you do not want to share a backlink profile with. Niche edits can be safe in small doses on well-vetted hosts. They can also quietly stack risk with every purchase, because you inherit the host site’s future decisions. Door three: managed editorial packages A managed package means someone does outreach or placement on real publications, writes content a real editor accepts, and delivers a fixed number of placements with the URLs to prove it. It is the most expensive door per link, and the only one where the linking page was created because an editor chose to publish, not because a marketplace listed a slot. What you are paying for is selection and refusal: a competent vendor rejects most prospect sites, and that rejection is the product. The trade-offs are real too: volume is low, timelines are weeks not days, and anyone promising specific ranking outcomes from a fixed package is overselling. Links raise the ceiling; content and site quality decide whether you reach it. The comparison in one table PBN Niche edits Managed package Typical price per link Lowest Low to mid Mid to high Where the page comes from Manufactured network Existing post on a real site New editorial placement Main risk Network detection wipes value, possible penalty Host quality varies wildly; risk accumulates Overpaying a weak vendor; slow delivery Reversible? Barely; disavow and hope Partially; links can be removed Mostly; worst case is wasted budget, not a penalty Fits a site you cannot afford to lose No Only with serious vetting Yes, with a vendor who shows their work Five questions that expose a bad vendor Whatever door you pick, ask these before paying: 1. Can I see three live placements you delivered last month? A real vendor has receipts. 2. How many candidate sites do you reject, and why? The answer reveals whether selection exists at all. 3. What happens if a placed link is removed within six months? Replacement policies separate businesses from marketplaces. 4. Will my link sit in editorial body content, or in a footer, sidebar, or author box? Only the first is worth paying for. 5. Can you promise a ranking? The only correct answer is no; anyone who says yes is pricing your hope, not their work. The bottom line for a small site Skip door one entirely; the discount is borrowed against your domain. Use door two sparingly and only when you can personally verify the host site is real. If the site matters, door three, a small, clearly scoped managed package, is the only model where the incentives point at quality, because the vendor’s reputation is attached to visible, checkable placements. That is the model LinkBronze runs: one package, fixed scope, live URLs delivered. If that is what you need, the details are on the home page . FAQ Are PBN links ever safe? Safe is the wrong frame. They work until the network is detected, and detection is a when, not an if, for networks sold openly. For a site you cannot afford to lose: no. What is a fair price for a niche edit? It varies with host quality, typically tens to a few hundred dollars per placement in small-site niches. Far below that range, ask why the site owner values their own pages so little. How many links does a small site actually need? Fewer than vendors suggest. A handful of relevant editorial links moves a small site more than dozens of weak ones. Volume is a spam signal, not an effort signal. How do I check what a vendor delivered? Demand live URLs, confirm each page is indexed, check the linking site has real organic traffic, and confirm the link sits in editorial context, not a links page. Keep reading Buying Backlinks in 2026: Fiverr vs Marketplaces vs Agencies, With Real Price Data Ahrefs vs Semrush vs Moz for Link Building: Which Data Actually Finds Links HARO Alternatives in 2026: Qwoted vs Featured vs Source of Sources

## Buying Backlinks in 2026: Fiverr vs Marketplaces vs Agencies, With Real Price Data
https://linkbronze.com/articles/buying-backlinks-fiverr-vs-marketplaces-vs-agencies/

LinkBronze › Guides › Buying Backlinks in 2026 Buying Backlinks in 2026: Fiverr vs Marketplaces vs Agencies, With Real Price Data 2026-07-14 · 8 min read · Link Building LinkBronze sells a managed link package, so we have a horse in this race and that bias is disclosed up front. The price data below comes from published third-party studies, not from our own rate card. In short: Published 2026 studies put the average guest post at roughly $459 through vendors and $295 when you buy direct from site owners, niche edits near $225, and serious agency retainers at $3,000 to $10,000 a month. Fiverr sells links from $5, and that price is the most honest signal on the page. Type "buy backlinks" into any search box and you will meet the full spectrum of this industry in one scroll: $5 Fiverr gigs promising 200 links, marketplaces quoting $200 to $600 per placement, and agencies that will not pick up the phone for less than a few thousand a month. All three claim to sell the same thing. They do not, and the price gap is the clearest map of what you are actually buying. Below is what each channel costs in 2026 according to published pricing studies, what the money buys in each case, and the risk math that most link sellers would rather you never run. We attribute every number, because this is a market where invented statistics are part of the product. What links cost in 2026, according to people who counted The most useful public numbers this year come from large-scale pricing studies. BuzzStream's analysis of roughly 500,000 sites puts the average guest post at about $295 when bought directly from a site owner and around $461 when bought through a vendor or marketplace, a markup of more than 50 percent for the middleman. Adsy's 2026 study of 52,671 websites tracks the vendor-side average at $459, up 7.5 percent from $427 in 2025. Niche edits, links inserted into existing articles, average about $225 per placement in the same research. Two structural findings from that data are worth more than the averages. First, authority is priced steeply: each additional 10 points of Domain Rating raises the asking price by roughly 32 percent on average. Second, listed prices run about four times higher than actual transaction prices, which means almost everything in this market is negotiable and almost nobody pays sticker. Channel one: Fiverr and the bottom of the market Fiverr gigs sell links from $5 to a few hundred dollars, often in bundles with round numbers like 50 DA50+ backlinks. Run the math against the studies above: if a real placement on a mid-authority site transacts near $300, a seller offering 50 of them for $30 is not selling that product. What ships instead is some mix of directory submissions, comment spam, links from private blog networks recycled across thousands of buyers, and links from sites with inflated third-party metrics and zero real traffic. The problem is not that cheap links do nothing. It is that they occasionally do something briefly, which keeps the market alive. Google's spam policies explicitly treat bought links that pass ranking credit as link spam, and its SpamBrain systems are built to neutralize exactly this inventory at scale. The typical outcome in 2026 is not a penalty; it is silence. The links are simply ignored, and your $50 bought nothing but risk exposure on a domain you presumably care about. Channel two: marketplaces and vendors Link marketplaces such as guest post platforms and curated inventories sit in the middle. You browse real sites with visible metrics, pay per placement, and the marketplace handles outreach and publication. At $200 to $600 for mid-tier placements, with DR 50+ sites regularly quoted at $600 to $1,500, this channel trades money for time honestly. The 50 percent-plus vendor markup that BuzzStream measured is the fee for skipping outreach. The catch is adverse selection. Sites that list themselves on link marketplaces are, by definition, selling links to anyone with a card, and Google can buy from the same catalog you can. The best inventory tends to leave the shelves quietly through private relationships, while heavily shopped domains accumulate a sold-link footprint: dozens of unrelated outbound links in guest posts, uniform pricing pages, and writing that reads like it was ordered by the pound. A useful filter is real organic traffic, not authority scores: a DR 55 site with 300 monthly organic visits is a rented billboard in a desert. Channel three: agencies and managed programs Agencies and managed link programs price by retainer or by delivered link. Published 2026 surveys put typical business spend at $3,000 to $10,000 per month, with startup-tier campaigns from about $1,500, and digital PR placements, links earned through data stories and journalist outreach, running $1,250 to $1,500 per link. Per-link, this is the most expensive channel on the page, and for competitive niches it is usually the only one that moves rankings durably. What the retainer buys is not the link itself but the machinery: prospecting against relevance rather than convenience, content that editors accept without a wince, and refusal to touch inventory that already smells sold. The honest caveat is that the label agency guarantees none of that. Plenty of retainers quietly resell the same marketplace inventory from channel two with a 100 percent markup. Ask any agency where links will come from, and walk if the answer is a private list they cannot show you. The risk ledger nobody itemizes Every purchased link carries the same three-line ledger. Cost: what you paid. Upside: ranking credit that survives Google's filters. Downside: at best the link is neutralized and your money evaporates; at worst a manual action takes your money pages out of the results until you clean up and file reconsideration. Cheap channels concentrate the downside; expensive channels mostly pay to shrink it. That is the actual product difference, and it is why the market supports a 300x price spread for what looks, in a backlink export, like the same row of data. The verdict, by budget and appetite With a few hundred dollars and a young site, skip paid links entirely; spend it on one genuinely useful page and manual outreach, because at that budget every purchasable link is channel-one inventory. With $500 to $2,000 a month, marketplaces can work if you filter ruthlessly for real traffic and topical fit, and you treat every placement as a small bet. Above $3,000 a month in a competitive niche, a managed program or digital PR is where durable results live, and the studies' per-link averages are your sanity check against being resold cheap inventory at agency prices. Frequently asked questions How much does a good backlink cost in 2026? Published studies cluster around $295 for a guest post bought directly from a site owner, $459 through vendors and marketplaces, and $225 for a niche edit in an existing article. High-authority placements at DR 50 and above commonly run $600 to $1,500, and digital PR links reach $1,250 to $1,500. Are $5 Fiverr backlinks ever worth it? No. Real placements transact near $300 on average, so a $5 gig is mathematically not selling real placements. The typical inventory is PBN, directory, and comment links that Google's spam systems ignore or, in a bad month, act on. The cost is small; the expected value is smaller. Is buying backlinks against Google's rules? Buying links intended to pass ranking credit violates Google's link spam policies unless the links carry sponsored or nofollow attributes. Enforcement in 2026 mostly means bought links are quietly neutralized by SpamBrain rather than penalized, but manual actions still happen, especially with obvious footprints. Why do agencies charge so much per link? You are paying for prospecting, content quality, editor relationships, and inventory refusal, the work that keeps links out of the sold-link footprint Google filters. Surveys put typical managed spend at $3,000 to $10,000 monthly. The risk is agencies reselling cheap marketplace inventory at markup, so always ask to see sourcing. We publish what we learn from running managed links, including the failures. Join the list to get the next pricing teardown when it lands. Keep reading Earned Media HARO Alternatives in 2026: Qwoted vs Featured vs Source of Sources Link Building PBN vs Niche Edits vs a Managed Package: What Is Safe for a Small Site? Link Building Ahrefs vs Semrush vs Moz for Link Building: Which Data Actually Finds Links

## HARO Alternatives in 2026: Qwoted vs Featured vs Source of Sources
https://linkbronze.com/articles/haro-alternatives-qwoted-vs-featured-vs-sos/

LinkBronze › Guides › HARO Alternatives in 2026 HARO Alternatives in 2026: Qwoted vs Featured vs Source of Sources 2026-07-18 · 8 min read · Earned Media LinkBronze sells a managed link package, so read our take on earned-media channels with that bias in mind. Every price and date below was checked against each platform's live pages or primary announcements on July 18, 2026, and we flag the one spot where published accounts conflict. In short: HARO died as Connectively on December 9, 2024 and came back free under Featured.com in April 2025. As of July 2026, Qwoted gives free users 2 pitches a month with a 2 hour delay (Pro is $149), Featured sells usage-based plans from $0, and Source of Sources is still free under Peter Shankman. If your outreach doc still says "pitch HARO three times a day," you are working from a map of a city that burned down, changed names, and got rebuilt under new management. Between 2023 and 2025, Help a Reporter Out was rebranded, paywalled, shut down, and finally resurrected by a new owner, and two serious alternatives grew up in the meantime. Most roundups on this topic were written mid-saga and quote prices that are simply wrong now. Here is the state of play as of July 18, 2026: what actually happened to HARO, with checkable dates, and how Qwoted, Featured, and Source of Sources compare for someone pitching journalists to earn links and mentions. What happened to HARO, dated and sourced Peter Shankman founded Help a Reporter Out in 2008, and Cision owned it from 2014 on; both facts come straight from the eventual acquisition announcement. The trouble started when Cision folded HARO into a new platform called Connectively, retiring the classic free email digests in favor of a dashboard with paid pitch credits. Published accounts disagree on exactly when in the first half of 2024 the switch was forced through, so we will not pretend there is one clean date. The ending was cleaner. On December 9, 2024, Cision permanently discontinued Connectively , HARO included. The notice is still live on Cision's site, pointing former users toward its enterprise suite, CisionOne. For about four months, the biggest name in source requests simply did not exist. Then it came back. On April 16, 2025, Featured.com announced it had acquired HARO from Cision , with investor backing that included Great North Ventures, and the first relaunched email went out on April 22, 2025 . Featured founder Brett Farmiloe's stated model: free for journalists and sources, funded by newsletter sponsorships, back to three digests a day. That relaunch reframes the whole topic. "HARO alternatives" no longer means replacements for a dead service; it means the revived HARO plus the platforms that earned a seat while it was gone. Qwoted: the structured marketplace Qwoted has been running since 2017 and feels like what HARO would be if it were designed as software instead of a newsletter. Journalists post requests on a platform, you respond from a profile that carries your bio and credentials, and every pitch is tracked. Pricing, from Qwoted's live pricing page as of July 18, 2026: the free Basic plan allows 2 pitches a month and imposes a 2 hour delay before you can respond to new requests. Pro costs $149 a month for 35 pitches with no delay, plus pitch analytics and an events and awards database. Teams is custom-priced with unlimited pitching. Worth flagging: 2024 and 2025 writeups still quote Pro at $99 a month; the live page says $149. Trust pricing pages, not roundups, ours included. For link builders, the free tier's real cost is not the pitch cap, it is the delay. Source requests are first-come auctions, and a two hour handicap on a request that closes in three is a polite no. Spend the two free pitches on requests where you are unusually qualified, not merely eligible. Qwoted's request flow skews toward business, finance, and trade press, the publications whose citations move authority metrics. Featured: HARO's new owner, running its own game Featured.com is the strangest entry here because it competes with the platform it owns. Its original product was a question-and-answer network claiming over 50,000 experts feeding articles across roughly 2,500 outlets, per its April 2025 acquisition release. It has since rebuilt around an AI workspace that surfaces journalist requests, drafts pitches, and runs monitoring workflows. Featured's pricing has moved several times, and its own blog documents earlier per-seat and pay-as-you-go models, so pin everything to the live pricing page , July 18, 2026: a Free plan with a small daily usage allowance, the company's own example being two to three media opportunities a week; Lite at $29 a month billed annually at $348; and Pro at $79 a month billed annually at $948, with a higher-usage Pro+ tier. Every plan, per that same page, includes journalist requests pulled from "HARO, LinkedIn, and more," podcast and speaking matching, and AI-search visibility tracking. The revived HARO itself stays free, funded by sponsors, and Farmiloe has said in relaunch interviews that pitches face AI detection and human verification before reaching reporters. The blunt read for a link builder: HARO 2.0 is the free top of Featured's funnel, and the paid product exists for people who want the pipeline automated. One hazard: AI-assisted pitching is exactly what editors now filter hardest. Drafting help is leverage; sending unread pitches is a blacklist application. Source of Sources: the founder's do-over While Connectively was stumbling through 2024, Shankman launched Source of Sources, which is HARO's original design with the serial numbers restored: a plain email, up to three times a day, full of reporter queries you answer by replying directly to the journalist. As of July 18, 2026, the SOS site is explicit that the list "doesn't cost a dime." Shankman asks that you donate to Best Friends Animal Society or give the project a public shout-out instead of paying him. SOS claims more than 20,000 journalists, broadcasters, bloggers, and brands, and the outlet logos on its homepage run from the Wall Street Journal to NPR. The moderation policy is memorably blunt: pitch a reporter off topic once, and if it gets back to him, you are out, no exceptions, no appeals. There is no dashboard, no analytics, no pitch tracker. That is either a flaw or the entire point, depending on how you work. At a price of zero, the signal quality is unbeatable; you just bring your own spreadsheet. Side by side, July 2026 Platform Free tier Paid tier Rhythm Watch out for HARO (Featured) Everything free, sponsor-funded None 3 email digests a day Everyone is back on the list, so response speed decides Qwoted 2 pitches a month, 2 hour delay Pro $149 a month, 35 pitches Platform plus real-time alerts The delay quietly kills free-tier win rates Featured Small daily usage allowance Lite $29, Pro $79 a month, billed annually AI chat and scheduled workflows Usage caps; AI-drafted pitches that read like AI Source of Sources Everything free None Up to 3 emails a day Zero tooling, and one off-topic pitch gets you banned How to run these without wasting a quarter Stack the free layers first. HARO digests, SOS emails, and a free Qwoted profile together cost nothing and cover most of the press that actually asks for sources. Answer fast and narrow. The winning reply reads like a quote the journalist can paste: two or three sentences of specific substance, a checkable name and title, a site that backs the claim, and no link begging. On email platforms the first useful reply often wins; Qwoted's paid tier exists because speed is worth money. Pay only when a specific wall stops you. If you keep finding Qwoted requests you could win after your two free pitches are spent, the $149 answers itself. If you want the hunting and drafting automated across channels, that is Featured's pitch, priced by usage. There is no scenario where paying replaces being the most qualified answer in the pile. And keep the SEO expectations honest. Many outlets nofollow external links, and some quote you without linking at all. What they reliably build is a citation pattern in real publications, exactly what search and AI answer engines lean on when deciding which brands to name. Treat source requests as a PR channel with an SEO byproduct. For a floor of links on your own timeline, earned media is the wrong tool; that base is what our fixed-scope managed package is for, while pitching compounds on top. Frequently asked questions Is HARO still free in 2026? Yes. Featured.com acquired HARO from Cision in April 2025 and relaunched it as a free service for both journalists and sources, supported by newsletter sponsors, with digests going out three times a day. The paid pitch credits belonged to the Connectively era, which Cision shut down on December 9, 2024. What is the difference between Qwoted and Featured? Qwoted is a structured pitching marketplace: journalists post requests and your plan caps pitches, 2 a month free or 35 on Pro at $149 a month as of July 2026. Featured is an AI-driven PR workspace with usage-based plans from $0 that surfaces journalist requests from HARO, LinkedIn, and other feeds, and it owns the revived HARO itself. Is Source of Sources really free? Yes. As of July 2026 the site says the list does not cost a dime; founder Peter Shankman suggests donating to an animal charity instead. You get up to three emails a day of journalist queries and reply directly to the reporter. The one enforced rule: pitch off topic and you are removed, with no appeals. Do links from HARO alternatives still help SEO in 2026? Yes, with caveats. They are earned citations from real publications, the pattern search and AI answer engines reward, but many outlets nofollow their external links and some mention you without linking. Treat these platforms as a PR channel with an SEO byproduct, not as a link vendor with an SLA. We publish what we learn pitching journalists for clients, the wins and the faceplants both. Join the list and the next teardown lands in your inbox. Keep reading Link Building Buying Backlinks in 2026: Fiverr vs Marketplaces vs Agencies, With Real Price Data Link Building PBN vs Niche Edits vs a Managed Package: What Is Safe for a Small Site? Link Building Ahrefs vs Semrush vs Moz for Link Building: Which Data Actually Finds Links