# Lune vs Noteweave

Noteweave reads a method and turns it into an executable plan, with agents that scope, explore, plan and run. It lives in VS Code, as does Lune. The two do different halves of the same day.

Competitor site: https://noteweave.io.

## Choose Noteweave if

- Reproducing a method is the work, not finding it.
- You want agents that plan and run experiments end to end.
- Tracking assumptions and reproducibility is part of your process.

## Choose Lune if

- You need to know whether the method is the right one before running it.
- You want claims checked against the paper that made them.
- You want retrieval in every client, not only in the editor.

## From a question to a citation

Noteweave: Scope the method -> Plan the experiment -> Run and evaluate.
Lune: Search top-tier venues -> Read the full text -> Quote with a locator.

One takes a paper and runs it. The other takes a claim and checks it.

## Line by line

| Dimension | Lune | Noteweave |
| --- | --- | --- |
| What it does | Finds, quotes, compares and verifies published work. | Turns methods into reproducible, executable plans. |
| Where it runs | Any MCP client, plus a CLI and three miniapps. | A VS Code extension and a web app. |
| What it reads | Top-tier venues, most papers in full text. | Papers, datasets, code and repositories. |
| How deep a citation goes | A verbatim quote and its locator, per claim. | Methods traced into the plan they produced. |
| Running experiments | Not offered. | Parallel evaluations and execution. |
| Published pricing | Free, $4.99 and $9.99 a month, or $47.90 and $95.90 a year. | None published. |

## Before the experiment, and after it

Noteweave picks up where a paper's method section ends: turn it into something runnable, surface the assumptions, evaluate it. That is a hard problem and a useful one, and being backed to build it suggests they are serious about it.

Lune sits on either side. Before, when you are deciding which method is worth reproducing and what the literature already reports about it. After, when the write-up needs every claim tied to a source.

## Two extensions, one editor

Both products ended up in VS Code, which says something about where research work has moved.

They do not overlap there. Noteweave's agents produce and run plans. Lune's tools answer questions about published work, in the same window, through MCP rather than an extension of its own.

## 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
- Noteweave Not published: Contact, no public pricing page

Noteweave ships a VS Code extension alongside its web app.

## Questions

### Is Lune a Noteweave alternative?

No. Noteweave turns methods into runnable experiments; Lune finds and verifies published work. They cover different halves.

### Can they be used together?

Yes. Both work in VS Code, and Lune is an MCP server any agent can call.

### Does Lune run code?

No. It returns evidence and methodology guidance; your agent runs whatever it runs.

## What we read

- [noteweave.io](https://noteweave.io)