Perplexity Prompts for Cited, Up-to-Date Research
Thirty tested prompts that turn Perplexity into a research analyst — every answer sourced, current, and verifiable. Built for deep research, market scans, comparisons, and news synthesis.
In short: This page contains 30 copy-paste ready prompts, organized into 6 categories with a description and pro tip for each. The first 15 prompts are free instantly — no signup needed. Hand-curated and tested by the AI Academy team.
Deep Research & Investigation
5 promptsMulti-Angle Topic Briefing
1/30<context> Topic: [TOPIC YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND] My current knowledge level: [BEGINNER / INTERMEDIATE / EXPERT] Decision this research supports: [WHAT YOU WILL DO WITH IT] </context> <task> Produce a structured research briefing on the topic above: 1. Give a 3-sentence plain-language definition. 2. Explain the 4-6 most important sub-components or dimensions, each with one current example. 3. Summarize the prevailing expert consensus AND the strongest dissenting view. 4. List the 3 most significant developments from the last 12 months. 5. Flag what is still uncertain or actively debated. Cite a source after every factual claim. Prefer primary sources and publications from the last 18 months. End with a short "what to read next" list of 3 authoritative sources. </task>
Generates a sourced, balanced briefing that gets you from zero to conversant on any topic.
Pro tip: Switch to Deep Research mode for this one — it will run multiple searches and reason across dozens of sources before answering.
Follow-the-Evidence Deep Dive
2/30<context> Question: [SPECIFIC QUESTION YOU WANT ANSWERED] Why it matters: [CONTEXT] </context> <task> Investigate the question above like a research analyst: 1. State your best current answer in one paragraph. 2. Show the chain of evidence: list each key source, what it claims, and how strongly it supports the answer. 3. Identify any sources that contradict the answer and explain the conflict. 4. Rate your overall confidence (high / medium / low) and explain why. 5. List the 2-3 specific things that would need to be true for this answer to be wrong. Cite every source inline. Do not fill gaps with assumptions — if evidence is thin, say so explicitly. </task>
Produces a transparent, evidence-graded answer instead of a confident-sounding guess.
Pro tip: Ask "what is your weakest source here?" as a follow-up to stress-test the conclusion.
Timeline Reconstruction
3/30<context> Event or trend: [WHAT YOU WANT THE TIMELINE FOR] Time range: [START] to [PRESENT] </context> <task> Build a chronological timeline of the event or trend above: 1. List each significant milestone with its date, what happened, and the source. 2. For each milestone, note who the key actors were. 3. Highlight the 3 turning points that most changed the trajectory. 4. End with the current state as of the most recent reporting. Use only dated, citable sources. If a date is disputed across sources, show both and note the disagreement. </task>
Reconstructs a clean, sourced chronology you can drop into a report or article.
Pro tip: Specify the exact time range — vague ranges make Perplexity pull stale or off-topic milestones.
Primary-Source Hunter
4/30<context> Claim or statistic I keep seeing: [THE CLAIM] Where I saw it: [BLOG / SOCIAL / NEWS] </context> <task> Trace the claim above back to its origin: 1. Identify the original primary source (study, dataset, filing, press release, official statement). 2. Quote the relevant passage from that primary source. 3. Explain how secondary coverage has paraphrased or distorted it, if at all. 4. State whether the claim is accurately represented, exaggerated, or false. Link directly to the primary source. Do not cite a blog that cites another blog — keep going until you reach the origin. </task>
Cuts through second-hand reporting to the original source behind a viral claim.
Pro tip: Perplexity excels here because it shows its source list — click through to confirm the primary source is real.
Open-Question Mapper
5/30<context> Field or problem: [AREA YOU ARE RESEARCHING] My goal: [WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DECIDE OR BUILD] </context> <task> Map the open questions in the field above: 1. List the 5-7 biggest unresolved questions or debates currently active. 2. For each, summarize the leading positions and who holds them. 3. Note which questions have the most recent research activity. 4. Identify which open questions are most relevant to my stated goal. Cite recent sources (last 24 months preferred). Distinguish settled facts from genuinely open debates. </task>
Surfaces the frontier of a field so you know where the real uncertainty lives.
Pro tip: Great as the first prompt in a research session — it tells you which threads are worth a Deep Research follow-up.
Prompts get you started. Tutorials level you up.
A growing library of 300+ hands-on AI tutorials. New tutorials added every week.
Fact-Checking & Verification
5 promptsSingle-Claim Verifier
6/30<context> Claim to check: [PASTE THE EXACT CLAIM] Source I heard it from: [OPTIONAL] </context> <task> Fact-check the claim above: 1. State a verdict: TRUE / MOSTLY TRUE / MIXED / MOSTLY FALSE / FALSE / UNVERIFIABLE. 2. Provide the strongest evidence for the verdict, with citations. 3. Note any important nuance, caveat, or missing context. 4. List the most authoritative sources you found and their publication dates. If credible sources conflict, report the conflict instead of picking a side. Do not state a verdict you cannot source. </task>
Delivers a sourced, nuanced verdict on a specific factual claim.
Pro tip: Paste the claim word-for-word — paraphrasing it can change the meaning and the verdict.
Statistic Sanity Check
7/30<context> Statistic: [THE NUMBER OR STAT] Context it is used in: [WHERE / HOW IT IS CITED] </context> <task> Verify and contextualize the statistic above: 1. Confirm the exact figure and its original source, with a link. 2. State the date and methodology behind the number. 3. Note whether it is current or whether a newer figure exists. 4. Flag common ways this stat gets misused or stripped of context. If you cannot find the original source, say the statistic is unverifiable rather than approximating it. </task>
Confirms whether a statistic is real, current, and used in the right context.
Pro tip: Numbers age fast — ask "is there a more recent figure?" to catch stats that are technically true but outdated.
Cross-Source Triangulation
8/30<context> Question: [THE FACTUAL QUESTION] </context> <task> Answer the question above using triangulation: 1. Find at least 3 independent, credible sources. 2. Show what each source says side by side. 3. State where they agree (high confidence) and where they diverge (lower confidence). 4. Give a final answer weighted by source quality and recency, and explain the weighting. Do not rely on a single source. Note the independence (or shared origin) of your sources. </task>
Builds a confidence-weighted answer from multiple independent sources.
Pro tip: Watch for sources that all trace back to the same press release — true independence is what makes triangulation work.
Quote Authentication
9/30<context> Quote: [PASTE THE QUOTE] Attributed to: [PERSON / ORGANIZATION] </context> <task> Authenticate the quote above: 1. Determine whether this person actually said or wrote this. 2. Find the original context (where, when, full surrounding passage). 3. Note whether the quote is accurate, misquoted, or fabricated. 4. Link to the most authoritative record of the original. If the quote is commonly misattributed, identify who actually said it. Do not confirm a quote you cannot trace to a credible record. </task>
Verifies whether a quote is real, accurate, and correctly attributed.
Pro tip: Especially useful before you publish a quote — misattributed quotes are a common credibility killer.
Myth-vs-Evidence Breakdown
10/30<context> Common belief: [THE WIDELY-HELD BELIEF] Domain: [HEALTH / FINANCE / TECH / HISTORY / ETC.] </context> <task> Evaluate the common belief above against current evidence: 1. State what most people believe and why it spread. 2. Summarize what current credible research actually shows. 3. Rate the belief: accurate / partially accurate / outdated / myth. 4. Explain the gap between perception and evidence. Cite recent, authoritative sources. Avoid sensationalism — report the evidence as it stands. </task>
Tests a popular belief against the current evidence and explains the gap.
Pro tip: Anchor it to a domain so Perplexity pulls the right kind of authority (e.g., peer-reviewed for health, regulators for finance).
Market & Competitive Research
5 promptsCompetitor Landscape Scan
11/30<context> My product/company: [WHAT YOU DO] Market: [CATEGORY / NICHE] Geography: [REGION OR GLOBAL] </context> <task> Map the competitive landscape for the market above: 1. List the 6-10 most relevant competitors, grouped by tier (leaders, challengers, emerging). 2. For each, note positioning, target customer, and one differentiator — with a source. 3. Identify the dominant pricing models in the market. 4. Surface any recent funding, launches, or acquisitions from the last 12 months. 5. Highlight a gap or underserved segment. Cite a source for every company-specific claim. Flag anything you could only find on the company's own marketing. </task>
Produces a sourced competitive map with tiers, positioning, and a market gap.
Pro tip: Run it again with "now focus only on emerging players from the last 18 months" to find threats incumbents miss.
Market Sizing & Trend Snapshot
12/30<context> Market: [SPECIFIC MARKET] Geography: [REGION] </context> <task> Produce a market snapshot for the market above: 1. Report the most recent market-size estimate (with year, figure, and source). 2. Note the reported growth rate and where estimates disagree. 3. Summarize the 3-4 dominant trends shaping the market now. 4. List the main tailwinds and headwinds. 5. Identify which customer segment is growing fastest. Cite each figure with its source and date. If estimates vary widely, show the range rather than a single number. </task>
Gives a sourced market-size and trend snapshot with honest estimate ranges.
Pro tip: Market-size figures vary hugely between analysts — always keep the range Perplexity surfaces rather than the most flattering number.
Customer Pain-Point Mining
13/30<context> Product category: [CATEGORY] Target customer: [WHO THEY ARE] </context> <task> Mine real customer pain points for the category above: 1. Find recurring complaints and frustrations expressed in reviews, forums, and discussions. 2. Group them into 4-6 themes, ranked by how often they appear. 3. Quote 1-2 representative real comments per theme, with the source. 4. Note which pains existing products fail to solve well. Prioritize sources like review sites, Reddit, and community forums. Cite where each pain point came from. </task>
Surfaces real, sourced customer frustrations you can build or message around.
Pro tip: Use Focus to restrict search to specific communities — point it at Reddit or review sites for raw, unfiltered language.
Pricing Intelligence Pull
14/30<context> Competitors to analyze: [LIST 3-6 COMPANIES] What I sell: [YOUR PRODUCT] </context> <task> Build a pricing comparison for the competitors above: 1. For each, list current published tiers, prices, and what each tier includes. 2. Note the value metric they charge on (seats, usage, features, etc.). 3. Identify any free tier, trial, or freemium model. 4. Spot where my product could position on price and why. Link to each pricing page. If pricing is gated or unpublished, say so rather than guessing. </task>
Assembles a sourced competitor pricing table with value metrics and positioning.
Pro tip: Pricing pages change constantly — Perplexity's live search means this stays current, but click through to confirm before you cite it externally.
Industry Player Profile
15/30<context> Company: [COMPANY NAME] Why I am researching them: [PARTNERSHIP / COMPETITOR / INVESTMENT / SALES] </context> <task> Profile the company above: 1. Summarize what they do, their model, and their stage/size. 2. List leadership and recent notable hires or departures. 3. Report recent funding, revenue signals, or financial disclosures. 4. Summarize recent product launches, news, and strategic moves (last 12 months). 5. Note their apparent strengths and vulnerabilities. Cite every claim. Distinguish verified facts from analyst speculation. </task>
Builds a current, sourced profile of any company for sales, partnership, or competitive prep.
Pro tip: Add "and surface anything negative or controversial" to get a balanced picture, not just the press-release version.
Comparisons & Buying Decisions
5 promptsHead-to-Head Product Comparison
16/30<context> Options: [PRODUCT A] vs [PRODUCT B] (add more if needed) My use case: [HOW YOU WILL USE IT] My priorities: [E.G. PRICE, EASE, INTEGRATIONS, SUPPORT] </context> <task> Compare the options above for my use case: 1. Build a comparison table across the dimensions that match my priorities. 2. State which option best fits each priority and why. 3. Note pricing for the tier that fits my use case. 4. Surface recent user sentiment and any common complaints, with sources. 5. Give a clear recommendation for MY situation, with the main trade-off. Cite sources for prices, features, and sentiment. Do not present marketing claims as verified facts. </task>
Delivers a use-case-specific comparison with a clear, reasoned recommendation.
Pro tip: State your priorities explicitly — without them Perplexity defaults to a generic comparison that helps nobody.
Best-In-Category Shortlist
17/30<context> Category: [WHAT YOU ARE SHOPPING FOR] Budget: [RANGE] Must-haves: [NON-NEGOTIABLE REQUIREMENTS] Nice-to-haves: [OPTIONAL] </context> <task> Build a shortlist for the category above: 1. Recommend the top 3-5 options that meet all must-haves within budget. 2. For each, give the standout strength, the main weakness, and the price. 3. Cite a recent expert review and recent user feedback per option. 4. Name the single best pick and the best budget pick. Exclude anything that fails a must-have. Cite sources and note review dates. </task>
Narrows a crowded category down to a sourced, budget-fit shortlist.
Pro tip: Set a hard budget — it forces Perplexity to exclude aspirational picks and stay realistic.
Trade-Off Decision Matrix
18/30<context> Decision: [WHAT YOU ARE CHOOSING BETWEEN] Options: [LIST THEM] What I care about most: [TOP 3 CRITERIA, RANKED] </context> <task> Help me decide between the options above: 1. Score each option against my ranked criteria (use a simple high/medium/low scale). 2. Explain the reasoning behind each score, with sources where factual. 3. Identify the key trade-off I am actually making. 4. Recommend an option and state under what conditions I should pick differently. Be honest about uncertainty. Cite sources for any factual claim driving a score. </task>
Turns a fuzzy decision into a scored, reasoned matrix with a clear recommendation.
Pro tip: Rank your criteria — the order changes the recommendation, and an unranked list gives a wishy-washy answer.
Switching-Cost Assessment
19/30<context> Current tool/provider: [WHAT YOU USE NOW] Considering switching to: [ALTERNATIVE] My setup: [TEAM SIZE, INTEGRATIONS, DATA, CONTRACTS] </context> <task> Assess the cost of switching from current to the alternative above: 1. List the practical migration steps and known pain points others report. 2. Estimate the realistic effort and any lock-in or data-export issues. 3. Compare ongoing cost and capability differences. 4. Identify who has successfully switched and what they say about it. 5. Recommend whether to switch, wait, or stay — and why. Cite real migration accounts and current pricing. Flag risks that vendors downplay. </task>
Evaluates whether a switch is worth it, including the hidden migration costs.
Pro tip: Search for others' migration stories specifically — vendors hide switching friction that real users will tell you about.
Spec & Requirement Match
20/30<context> What I need it to do: [HARD REQUIREMENTS] Candidates: [LIST OPTIONS, OR ASK FOR SUGGESTIONS] Deal-breakers: [WHAT IT ABSOLUTELY CANNOT LACK] </context> <task> Match options to my requirements above: 1. For each candidate, mark each hard requirement as met / partial / not met, with a source. 2. Immediately disqualify anything that hits a deal-breaker. 3. Rank the surviving options by total fit. 4. Note any requirement that NO option fully meets. Verify capability claims against documentation or recent reviews, not just marketing pages. </task>
Filters candidates against your real requirements and flags unmet needs.
Pro tip: List deal-breakers separately — it lets Perplexity hard-disqualify options instead of softly weighing them.
Academic & Literature Research
5 promptsLiterature Landscape Scan
21/30<context> Research topic: [YOUR TOPIC OR QUESTION] Field: [DISCIPLINE] Depth needed: [QUICK OVERVIEW / THOROUGH] </context> <task> Scan the academic literature on the topic above: 1. Identify the foundational/seminal works and the most-cited recent papers. 2. Summarize the main schools of thought or competing approaches. 3. Note where the field has reached consensus and where it is contested. 4. Surface the most recent significant findings (last 2-3 years). 5. Identify gaps the literature has not yet addressed. Cite papers with authors and year. Prioritize peer-reviewed sources and flag preprints as such. </task>
Maps the key papers, debates, and gaps in a research area.
Pro tip: Use the Academic Focus mode so Perplexity prioritizes scholarly sources over blogs and news.
Paper Summary & Critique
22/30<context> Paper: [TITLE / AUTHORS / LINK OR DOI] My purpose: [LITERATURE REVIEW / CLASS / DECISION] </context> <task> Summarize and critique the paper above: 1. State the research question, method, and main findings in plain language. 2. Explain why it matters and what it contributes. 3. Identify the key limitations the authors acknowledge. 4. Note any methodological concerns or critiques raised by others. 5. List 3 closely related papers worth reading next. Accurately represent the paper — do not overstate findings. Cite the original and any critiques. </task>
Produces a faithful summary plus a critical read of an academic paper.
Pro tip: Paste the DOI or direct link so Perplexity grounds its summary in the actual paper, not a press release about it.
Concept Explainer With Sources
23/30<context> Concept: [THE CONCEPT / THEORY / METHOD] My background: [WHAT I ALREADY KNOW] Where I will use it: [PAPER / PROJECT / EXAM] </context> <task> Explain the concept above rigorously: 1. Define it precisely, then give an intuitive analogy. 2. Explain its origin and the key thinkers behind it. 3. Walk through how it works, step by step. 4. Give a current real-world application or example. 5. Note common misunderstandings. Cite authoritative sources (textbooks, papers, reputable references). Match the depth to my stated background. </task>
Explains a complex concept clearly while staying anchored to authoritative sources.
Pro tip: Tell it your background so the explanation lands at the right level instead of being too basic or too dense.
Methodology Comparison
24/30<context> Research goal: [WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO STUDY] Methods under consideration: [E.G. METHOD A vs METHOD B] Constraints: [DATA, TIME, ETHICS, SAMPLE] </context> <task> Compare the methods above for my research goal: 1. Explain what each method is best suited for. 2. Compare strengths, weaknesses, assumptions, and data requirements. 3. Note how each handles my stated constraints. 4. Cite examples of studies that used each method well. 5. Recommend a method (or combination) and justify it. Ground recommendations in methodological literature, with citations. </task>
Helps you choose a research method with sourced reasoning and real examples.
Pro tip: List your constraints up front — the "right" method is usually the one that survives your real-world limits.
Citation & Source Finder
25/30<context> Claim I need to support: [THE CLAIM IN MY WRITING] Field: [DISCIPLINE] Source type preferred: [PEER-REVIEWED / OFFICIAL DATA / ETC.] </context> <task> Find citable sources for the claim above: 1. Identify 3-5 credible sources that directly support the claim. 2. For each, give the full reference, the relevant finding, and a link. 3. Note how strongly each source supports the exact claim. 4. Flag if the evidence is weaker than the claim implies. Only suggest sources you can actually locate and link. Never invent a citation — if none exists, say so. </task>
Finds real, linkable sources to back a specific claim in your writing.
Pro tip: Always click through to confirm the source exists and says what is reported — never paste a citation you have not opened.
Go from copy-pasting to actually mastering AI.
AI Academy: 300+ hands-on tutorials on ChatGPT, Claude, Midjourney, and 50+ other tools. New tutorials added every week.
News & Current-Events Synthesis
5 promptsWhat-Happened Briefing
26/30<context> Story or event: [WHAT YOU WANT CAUGHT UP ON] How much I already know: [NOTHING / SOME] </context> <task> Brief me on the story above: 1. Summarize what happened in 4-5 sentences. 2. Explain the essential background needed to understand it. 3. List the key players and their stakes. 4. Report the latest developments as of the most recent coverage. 5. Note what to watch for next. Cite multiple outlets and prefer the most recent reporting. Distinguish confirmed facts from developing claims. </task>
Catches you up on a news story with sourced facts and clear context.
Pro tip: Add "and note which outlets are reporting which claims" to spot facts that only one source has confirmed.
Multi-Outlet Bias Check
27/30<context> Topic/event: [THE STORY] </context> <task> Compare how different outlets are covering the story above: 1. Summarize the core facts everyone agrees on. 2. Show how 3-4 outlets across the spectrum frame the story differently. 3. Identify which details each side emphasizes or omits. 4. Separate verified facts from opinion and framing. Cite each outlet. Stay neutral — describe the framing without endorsing any side. </task>
Reveals how the same story is framed across outlets so you can see past the spin.
Pro tip: Ask for outlets "across the political spectrum" explicitly to avoid a one-sided source set.
Developing-Story Tracker
28/30<context> Ongoing situation: [THE STORY] Last time I checked: [DATE OR "FIRST TIME"] </context> <task> Give me an update on the developing situation above: 1. Summarize what is confirmed as of right now. 2. List the newest developments since my last check (or the last week). 3. Flag claims that are reported but not yet confirmed. 4. Note what major questions remain open. Use only the most recent sources and timestamp each key claim. Be explicit about what is rumor vs. confirmed. </task>
Tracks a fast-moving story and clearly separates confirmed from unconfirmed.
Pro tip: Perplexity's live search shines here — re-run the same prompt daily to get only what is new since last time.
Trend Spotter Digest
29/30<context> Industry/topic: [YOUR AREA OF INTEREST] Time window: [LAST WEEK / MONTH] </context> <task> Digest the most important developments in the area above for the time window: 1. List the 5-7 most significant stories or announcements, ranked by impact. 2. For each, give a one-line summary, why it matters, and the source. 3. Identify the overarching theme connecting them. 4. Note one emerging signal that is not yet mainstream. Prioritize recent, credible sources. Skip filler and recycled news. </task>
Produces a ranked, sourced digest of what actually mattered in your field.
Pro tip: Run it as a weekly habit and save the output — over time the "emerging signal" section becomes a useful trend log.
Impact-On-Me Analysis
30/30<context> News/event: [THE STORY] My situation: [YOUR ROLE / BUSINESS / PERSONAL CONTEXT] </context> <task> Analyze how the event above affects me specifically: 1. Summarize the event and the relevant facts. 2. Explain the direct and indirect ways it could affect my situation. 3. Identify any actions I should consider, and the timeline for them. 4. Note what is still uncertain and what to monitor. Ground the analysis in cited reporting. Be clear about what is established vs. speculative, and avoid alarmism. </task>
Translates a general news event into what it concretely means for your situation.
Pro tip: The more specific your situation, the more useful this gets — vague context produces generic "it depends" answers.
Frequently Asked Questions
Prompts are the starting line. Tutorials are the finish.
A growing library of 300+ hands-on tutorials on ChatGPT, Claude, Midjourney, and 50+ AI tools. New tutorials added every week.
7-day free trial. Cancel anytime.