# Lune vs CoResearcher

CoResearcher takes a reference list and matches each entry against academic indexes: verified, mismatched, or not found. Lune goes one step further and asks whether the paper actually supports the sentence citing it.

Competitor site: https://coresearcher.ai.

## Choose CoResearcher if

- You need a fast pass over a bibliography before submission.
- Your worry is fabricated references, not misread ones.
- You want a check with no account and no setup.

## Choose Lune if

- The reference resolves and you still are not sure it says what you wrote.
- You want the supporting sentence quoted back, with a locator.
- You want the check to run inside your agent while you draft.

## From a question to a citation

CoResearcher: Paste the reference list -> Match against indexes -> Verified or not found.
Lune: Send the claim -> Read the full text -> Quote with a locator.

A reference can exist and still not support the sentence citing it.

## Line by line

| Dimension | Lune | CoResearcher |
| --- | --- | --- |
| What gets checked | The claim, against the source text. | The reference, against academic indexes. |
| What you get back | A verbatim quote and its locator, or nothing found. | Verified, mismatched, or not found. |
| Coverage | Top-tier venues, most papers in full text. | Major academic indexes, metadata level. |
| Where it runs | Any MCP client, plus a CLI and three miniapps. | A web tool, no account needed. |
| Discovery | Search, sweep, related papers, citation graph. | None. You bring the reference list. |
| Entry price | $4.99 a month ($47.90 a year), or free for 10 requests a day. | No pricing published. |

## Two ways a citation goes wrong

The loud failure is the fabricated reference: a plausible title, plausible authors, no such paper. CoResearcher catches that, and its own wording is the right instinct, that each reference is looked up rather than guessed by a language model.

The quiet failure is worse for a reviewer. The paper exists, the DOI resolves, and it does not say what your sentence claims. Metadata cannot catch that, because the answer is in the text.

## Why full text is the requirement

Checking a claim means finding the sentence that supports it, or establishing that no such sentence exists. Both need the paper, not the record for the paper.

That is why Lune indexes accepted papers in full and returns the quote with its location. gather_evidence goes further and names what evidence is still missing rather than writing around the gap.

## Pricing

- Lune Free: $0, 10 requests a day, every tool
- Lune Pro: $4.99, a month or $47.90 a year, 300 requests a day
- Lune Max: $9.99, a month or $95.90 a year, 600 requests a day
- Lune Credits: $0.99, 300 extra requests, no expiry
- CoResearcher Not published: Free to try, no account needed

CoResearcher does not publish plan pricing on its site.

## Questions

### Is Lune a CoResearcher alternative?

It covers the same worry and goes further, but CoResearcher checks any reference list against broad indexes, including papers outside Lune's corpus.

### Can Lune check a whole bibliography?

It checks claims rather than reference lists. Point verify_claims at the sentences and it answers each with a quote or with nothing found.

### Can I use both?

Reasonably, yes. Run a reference-existence pass over the bibliography, then check the claims that matter against the text.

## What we read

- [coresearcher.ai](https://coresearcher.ai)