# Lune vs NeuraLumi

NeuraLumi's argument is that keyword search returns the wrong papers, so it ranks 200 million of them with NLP instead. Lune agrees about keywords and goes at the problem from the other end, by reading fewer papers properly.

Competitor site: https://neuralumi.com.

## Choose NeuraLumi if

- Your problem is that search returns the wrong papers, across every field.
- Biopharma literature is where you work.
- A free tier with rate limits is enough for how much you search.

## Choose Lune if

- Ranking is not your problem; quoting the source is.
- You want the retrieval inside your agent, not in a search box.
- You want typed comparisons across a set of papers, not a ranked list.

## From a question to a citation

NeuraLumi: Search 200M+ papers -> Rank with NLP -> Most useful papers.
Lune: Search top-tier venues -> Read the full text -> Quote with a locator.

Rank better, or read deeper. Both beat keyword search.

## Line by line

| Dimension | Lune | NeuraLumi |
| --- | --- | --- |
| What is indexed | Top-tier venues, most papers in full text. | More than 200 million research papers. |
| How relevance is decided | Semantic search and reranking inside a gated corpus. | Deep learning ranking across the whole index. |
| How deep a citation goes | A verbatim quote and its locator, per claim. | The papers most likely to be useful to you. |
| Agent access | MCP and a CLI, on every plan. | No MCP server or public API listed on their site. |
| Entry price | $4.99 a month ($47.90 a year), or free for 10 requests a day. | Free with rate limits; paid tiers not published. |
| Methodology guidance | A corpus on peer review, ablations and venue choice. | Not offered. |

## Two fixes for the same complaint

Everyone in this category is reacting to the same thing: keyword search over titles and abstracts returns papers that share words with your query and nothing else.

NeuraLumi fixes it by ranking better across everything. Lune fixes it by indexing less and reading it in full, so a query can match a sentence in the methods section rather than a phrase in the abstract.

## What happens after the ranking

A better ranked list is still a list. The next step, reading the papers and working out what they support, stays with you.

Lune's tools take that next step. extract_from_papers lines up several papers as a typed table, and verify_claims answers a sentence with the quote behind it. Neither is possible from a ranking alone.

## 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
- NeuraLumi Free: $0, with rate limits
- NeuraLumi Paid: Not published, advanced features, priority support

NeuraLumi does not publish paid tier prices on its site.

## Questions

### Is Lune a NeuraLumi alternative?

For agent-side retrieval and quoting, yes. For a wide NLP-ranked sweep, including biopharma, NeuraLumi indexes far more.

### Which finds more papers?

NeuraLumi, by a wide margin. Lune finds fewer and can tell you what they actually say.

### Does NeuraLumi connect to agents?

No MCP server or public API is listed on their site.

## What we read

- [neuralumi.com](https://neuralumi.com)