# Lune vs Scite

Scite reads citation statements at scale and labels them supporting, contrasting or mentioning, across 1.6 billion citations. It is the closest thing in this list to what Lune does, and it points the evidence the other way round.

Competitor site: https://scite.ai.

## Choose Scite if

- You want to know whether later work supported or disputed a finding.
- Coverage across journals, preprints, books and patents matters.
- A Zotero plugin and a browser extension fit your reading habits.

## Choose Lune if

- Your question is whether this paper supports your sentence.
- You need the quote and its location, not a citation label.
- Your field publishes at conferences and you want that full text.

## From a question to a citation

Scite: Look up a paper -> Read citing statements -> Supporting or contrasting.
Lune: Send the claim -> Read the full text -> Quote with a locator.

Scite asks what the field said about a paper. Lune asks what a paper says about your claim.

## Line by line

| Dimension | Lune | Scite |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Which direction it reads | Into the paper, for the line behind a claim. | Outward from the paper, into what cites it. |
| What is indexed | Top-tier venues, most papers in full text. | 1.6B citations across 280M+ articles, books and patents. |
| What you get back | A verbatim quote and its locator, or nothing found. | Citation statements labelled supporting or contrasting. |
| Agent access | MCP and a CLI, on every plan. | An API and MCP compatibility with Claude and ChatGPT. |
| Methodology guidance | A corpus on peer review, ablations and venue choice. | Not offered. |
| Published pricing | Free, $4.99 and $9.99 a month, or $47.90 and $95.90 a year. | A trial plus paid plans; figures on their pricing page. |

## The best idea in this category, pointed the other way

Scite's Smart Citations answer a question everyone should be asking and almost nobody was: not how many times a paper was cited, but whether the citations agreed with it. Citation counts reward attention; Scite reads what the citing sentence actually said.

That is a claim about the paper. Lune answers a claim about your sentence: does this source support what you wrote, and where. Both refuse to treat a citation as a number, and they arrive from opposite ends.

## Where they overlap, and where they do not

Both ship MCP access, so an agent can call either. Scite reaches far more of the record, including journals, books and patents that Lune has no plans to index.

Lune reads a smaller set in full, which is what lets verify_claims return the supporting line rather than a label, and gather_evidence report what is still missing. If you can afford one, pick the direction your work fails in.

## 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
- Scite Trial: Free, listed on their site
- Scite Paid: Published, figures on their pricing page

Scite is part of the Research Solutions family; see their pricing page for current figures.

## Questions

### Is Lune a Scite alternative?

They solve adjacent problems. Scite tells you how the field received a paper; Lune tells you whether a paper supports your sentence.

### Does Scite work with agents?

Yes. It publishes an API and lists MCP compatibility with Claude and ChatGPT, plus a Zotero plugin.

### Can I use both?

That is the strongest setup on this page. Check the claim against the source with Lune, then check how later work received it with Scite.

## What we read

- [scite.ai](https://scite.ai)
- [Pricing](https://scite.ai/pricing)