haro vs qwoted
HARO vs Qwoted — features, pricing, and which to choose for your SEO workflow in 2026.
Quick Verdict
HARO (now operating as Connectively) and Qwoted are the two biggest platforms for digital PR link building, connecting sources with journalists seeking expert commentary. While both follow the same basic model—journalists post queries, sources respond with expertise—they've evolved in dramatically different directions since Qwoted launched as HARO's modern competitor in 2018.
The fundamental difference comes down to curation versus volume. HARO floods your inbox with hundreds of queries daily across every conceivable topic, while Qwoted focuses on quality matching with fewer, more targeted opportunities that actually align with your expertise.
Feature Comparison
HARO operates on an email-blast model where queries get sent to massive distribution lists three times daily. You'll receive 50-100+ queries per email, covering everything from cryptocurrency to pet grooming, regardless of your stated expertise. The platform recently added AI-powered matching through Connectively, but the core experience remains filtering through high-volume, low-relevance opportunities. Qwoted takes the opposite approach with intelligent query matching based on detailed expertise profiles. You receive 5-15 highly targeted queries that actually match your background, plus the ability to browse and search all active queries on their platform. Qwoted also provides journalist verification, source credibility scores, and detailed pitch tracking—features HARO lacks entirely. The biggest operational difference is response tracking. HARO offers zero visibility into whether journalists received your pitch or how many others responded. Qwoted shows pitch delivery status, journalist engagement, and lets you see if your response was viewed, giving you actual data to improve your success rate.
Pricing Comparison
Both platforms start free, but the paid tiers reveal their different philosophies. HARO's premium plans ($49-$399/month) primarily offer earlier access to queries and some basic filtering—essentially paying to get the same flood of irrelevant queries a few hours sooner. Qwoted's paid plans ($97-$297/month) focus on advanced matching algorithms, unlimited pitches, priority placement, and detailed analytics. You're paying for quality curation and professional tools rather than just timing advantages.
Best For
HARO works best for large agencies with dedicated PR teams who can efficiently process high volumes of queries. If you have someone whose full-time job is monitoring hundreds of daily opportunities and your expertise spans dozens of industries, HARO's spray-and-pray approach might yield results through sheer volume. Qwoted is better for individual experts, consultants, and smaller teams focused on building authority in specific niches. The intelligent matching means you spend 20 minutes daily on relevant opportunities instead of 2 hours sorting through irrelevant ones, making it ideal for busy professionals who want efficient PR outreach.
The Verdict
Qwoted wins for most users seeking effective digital PR link building. While HARO pioneered the journalist-source matching space, its high-volume, low-precision approach feels outdated compared to Qwoted's intelligent curation and professional features. Unless you're specifically equipped to handle massive query volumes, Qwoted delivers better ROI through quality over quantity.