35 Best Perplexity Prompts (2026)

Research [topic] and return a structured brief. Cover: (1) what it is and why it matters, (2) the current state as of the last 12 months, (3) the main competing viewpoints, (4) the strongest supporting evidence, and (5) open questions. Use primary sources and reputable reporting; prefer sources from the last 12 months. Link every claim to a numbered citation. End with a "Confidence & limitations" section that flags where sources conflict or evidence is thin. Format as a bulleted brief with clear headings.

Give me a state-of-the-field scan on [research area]. Cite only peer-reviewed studies, systematic reviews, or official reports — no blogs or press releases. For each key finding, note the study, year, sample or scope, and how strong the evidence is. Group findings into "well-established", "emerging", and "contested". Prefer work from the last 5 years but include landmark older studies. Flag any conflicting results explicitly. Present as a table: Finding | Evidence strength | Key source.

Map the debate around [contested question]. Present the strongest case for each side fairly, using the best sources each side actually relies on. For every argument, give the core claim, the evidence behind it, and the main rebuttal. Do not take a side. Prefer primary sources and named experts over opinion pieces. End with the key points where both sides agree and the specific facts that are still genuinely disputed. Link every claim. Format as two columns plus a shared "Points of agreement" section.

Research the competitive landscape for [industry or product category]. Identify the top 6-8 players, and for each give: positioning, target customer, pricing model, notable strengths, and a known weakness or criticism. Use company filings, official pricing pages, and recent reporting from the last 12 months. Note where public information is unavailable rather than guessing. Link every data point to a source. Return as a comparison table, then a 3-sentence takeaway on where the market is heading.

Build a dated timeline of how [event or situation] developed, from the earliest relevant moment to today. For each entry give the date, what happened, and a citation to a primary or contemporaneous source. Distinguish confirmed facts from later claims or allegations. Prefer official statements, court or regulatory filings, and reporting from the time. Flag any dates or facts that sources disagree on. Format as a chronological list with a citation on every entry.

Explain [complex topic] to a smart non-expert in about 600 words. Start with a one-paragraph plain-English summary, then build up the key mechanisms and why they matter. Use a concrete analogy where it helps, define any jargon on first use, and cite a reliable source for every non-obvious claim. Prefer authoritative primary sources. End with 3 things people commonly get wrong about it, each with a citation. Keep it accurate over simple — if something is genuinely uncertain, say so.

Fact-check this exact claim: "[paste the claim]". Rate it as True, Mostly true, Mixed, Mostly false, or False, and explain why in 3-4 sentences. Base the verdict only on primary sources or reputable fact-checkers, and quote the specific line from a source that supports your rating. If the claim is partly true, separate the accurate part from the inaccurate part. If it can't be verified, say "Unverifiable" and explain what evidence is missing. Link every source.

Find the original primary source for this statistic: "[paste the stat]". Trace it back past any blogs or news articles that merely repeat it, to the study, dataset, or official report where it first appeared. Tell me who produced it, the year, the exact figure and its wording, the sample or methodology, and any caveats the source itself gives. Note if the number is commonly quoted out of context. Link the primary source directly.

I saw this story circulating: "[paste headline or summary]". Check what actually happened using reporting from the last 7 days and any official statements. Separate confirmed facts from speculation and from what is still unconfirmed. Note which outlets are reporting it and whether any are contradicting each other. If it's misleading or missing context, explain how. Prefer primary sources over aggregators. Give a short verdict, then the evidence, with every claim linked.

There's disagreement about [question]. Find the range of positions across reputable sources and lay out who claims what and on what basis. Where sources conflict, tell me why — different data, different timeframes, different definitions, or bias. Identify which position the strongest primary evidence supports, and be explicit about how confident that conclusion is. Do not paper over the disagreement. Link every source and format as: Position | Who holds it | Evidence | Reliability.

Give me a balanced reputation check on [company or person]. Cover verified facts, notable achievements, and any controversies, lawsuits, or credible criticism — each with a citation. Use official records, court or regulatory filings, and reputable reporting; check Reddit and X for first-hand experiences but label those as anecdotal. Separate confirmed issues from rumors. Flag anything you can't verify. Prefer sources from the last 24 months for current standing. End with a one-line, evidence-based summary.

Compare [Product A vs Product B] for someone who will mainly use it for [use case]. Build a table covering price, key specs, real-world performance, reliability, and the biggest complaint owners report about each. Pull current prices and specs from official pages and recent hands-on reviews from the last 12 months; pull complaints from Reddit and owner forums. Say which one wins for my use case and why, and name the one situation where the other is the better pick. Link every source.

Find the best [product type] I can buy for [your budget] in [country/region], for [use case]. Give a top pick plus two alternatives, each with current price, why it fits my budget and needs, and its main trade-off. Use current pricing and reviews from the last 12 months; check owner discussions on Reddit for reliability red flags. Exclude anything discontinued or hard to buy where I am. Flag if my budget is unrealistic for what I want. Link prices and reviews.

What do real owners actually think of [product] after living with it? Focus on Reddit, forums, and X rather than sponsored reviews. Summarize the most common praise, the most common complaints, and any recurring reliability or long-term issues. Note roughly how widespread each opinion is and how recent, and quote a representative comment for the big themes with a link. Call out anything that looks like astroturfing or paid hype. Be honest if sentiment is mixed.

I currently have [current model/version] and I'm considering [newer model/version]. Is the upgrade worth it for someone who mainly does [use case]? List the meaningful differences, which ones I'd actually notice, and which are marketing. Use official specs plus hands-on comparisons and owner reports from the last 12 months. Give a clear verdict — upgrade, wait, or skip — with the price of the upgrade weighed against the real benefit. Flag any known issues with the new model. Link every claim.

I'm about to buy [product or service]. Tell me the downsides before I commit. Find the most common complaints, hidden costs, subscription traps, poor support experiences, or reliability problems people report. Use owner discussions, review sites, and complaint threads from the last 12 months. Note how common each issue is and whether the company has addressed it. Include the return or cancellation policy if relevant. Be blunt — I want the reasons not to buy, each with a source.

I have a meeting with [company or person] about [topic]. Prepare a one-page briefing. Cover: who they are and what they do, recent news or announcements from the last 6 months, likely priorities or pain points, and 5 smart questions I could ask. Use official sources, recent reporting, and their own public statements. Note anything I should avoid assuming. Flag where information is thin. Keep it to bullets I can skim in two minutes, with a citation on every factual claim.

Here is a document: [paste text or upload the file to this Space]. Give me a tight summary in 5 bullets, then a separate list of every action item, decision, deadline, and owner mentioned. Quote the exact line each action comes from so I can verify it. Flag anything ambiguous or where an owner or date is missing. Do not add anything that isn't in the document. End with the 3 most important open questions the document leaves unanswered.

Draft a [type of policy, e.g. remote-work or data-retention] policy for a [size and type] organization in [country/region]. Base it on current best practice and any legal requirements that apply, citing the specific regulation or standard for each requirement. Keep it clear and practical, with sections for scope, rules, responsibilities, and review. Flag anything that genuinely needs a lawyer's sign-off rather than guessing. Note where requirements differ by jurisdiction. Link every legal or standards citation.

Using Labs, build a comparison spreadsheet of [items to compare, e.g. project-management tools] for a [team size and use case]. Columns: name, price per user, key features, integrations, notable limitation, and a source link. Fill it from official pricing pages and recent reviews from the last 12 months, and leave a cell blank rather than guessing when data is unavailable. Add a short recommendation row at the bottom for my use case. Make the sheet downloadable.

Using Labs, research [topic] and turn it into a 10-slide deck for [audience]. Structure: title, the problem, why now, 3-4 key findings each backed by a cited source, implications, and recommended next steps. Keep each slide to a headline and 3-4 bullets, with the source noted on any slide that states a fact or number. Prefer sources from the last 12 months. Add a final "Sources" slide listing every citation. Make the deck downloadable.

Research what people actually search and ask about [topic/niche]. Group the questions and phrasings by intent — informational, comparison, and buying — and note the real language people use. Pull from forums, Reddit, Q&A sites, and recent articles rather than guessing. For each cluster, suggest one content angle that would genuinely help. Flag questions that seem to have poor existing answers as opportunities. Link representative sources for each cluster. Return as a grouped list.

Audit how [competitor] approaches content for [topic/niche]. Identify the main themes they cover, their apparent angle and tone, formats they use, and any obvious gaps they're not addressing. Use their own published pages and recent reporting from the last 12 months. Don't guess at private metrics — stick to what's publicly visible and say so. End with 5 specific opportunities where I could do better or cover something they miss. Link every example page.

Give me a trend brief on what's changing in [industry/topic] right now. Cover the 5-6 most significant recent developments from the last 6 months, why each matters, and who's driving it. Distinguish genuine shifts from hype, and cite a credible source for each. Note anything being over-claimed. Prefer primary sources, official announcements, and reporting over opinion pieces. End with what this means for [my role/business] in 3 bullets. Link every development.

Find the real frustrations and unmet needs of [target audience] around [problem/product category]. Mine Reddit, forums, reviews, and X for the exact words people use to describe their pain. Group the pain points by theme, rank them by how often they come up, and quote a representative comment for each with a link. Note which frustrations existing products fail to solve. Don't sanitize the language — I want how customers actually talk. Flag anything that looks like an outlier.

Here is a draft article: [paste text]. Check every factual claim, statistic, date, and name in it. For each, tell me whether it's correct, questionable, or unverifiable, and cite a primary source. List any claims that are outdated, missing context, or need a source added. Do not rewrite the piece — just give me a checklist of issues to fix, ordered by risk. Flag the single claim most likely to draw a correction. Link every source you used to verify.

Give me a fundamentals snapshot of [ticker]. Cover: latest revenue and earnings trend, margins, debt, cash position, valuation multiples versus peers, and the main growth drivers and risks. Pull figures from the most recent official filings and earnings reports, and date every number. Cite the filing for each figure. Distinguish reported facts from analyst estimates. Flag anything unusual or one-off. This is not financial advice — end with the 3 things I'd need to verify before making a decision. Format as a table plus a short summary.

Summarize current analyst ratings and sentiment on [ticker]. Give the range of ratings and price targets, who's bullish and who's bearish and why, and how sentiment has shifted over the last 3 months. Separately, note what retail investors are saying on Reddit and X, labeled as sentiment not analysis. Cite each rating and claim, and date it. Flag where analysts sharply disagree. Remind me this is not advice. Format as: Bull case | Bear case | Retail sentiment, each with sources.

Read [ticker]'s most recent earnings report and filing and tell me what actually matters. Cover: did they beat or miss on revenue and earnings, what guidance did they give, what changed versus last quarter, and what management flagged as risks. Quote the specific numbers and the exact guidance language, citing the filing. Separate the headline from the details that the market may have overlooked. Note anything buried in the footnotes. This is not advice. Keep it to a one-page brief with every figure sourced.

Compare [investment A vs investment B, e.g. two ETFs or two stocks] for a [time horizon and risk tolerance] investor. Build a table of the factors that matter — for funds that's expense ratio, holdings, historical return, and risk; for stocks that's valuation, growth, and balance sheet. Use official fund documents or filings and date every figure. Explain the key trade-off between them in plain English. This is not financial advice — flag what depends on my personal situation. Cite every data point.

Explain [concept] at three levels: (1) to a curious 12-year-old, (2) to a college student, and (3) to a professional in the field. Each level should be accurate, not just simpler — build real understanding, not a watered-down version. Define key terms, use one good analogy per level, and cite a reliable source for the core facts. End with a short "common misconceptions" note. If experts genuinely disagree on any part, say so instead of picking one view.

Create a [number]-week study plan to learn [subject] from scratch to [goal level]. Break it into weekly milestones with specific topics, and for each recommend the best free or reputable resource — courses, papers, docs, or books — with a link. Order topics so each builds on the last. Include checkpoints to test myself. Prefer authoritative, current sources and note if any recommendation costs money. Flag topics that are commonly skipped but important. Return as a week-by-week table.

Make a 10-question practice quiz on [topic] at [difficulty level]. Mix multiple-choice and short-answer, covering the most important ideas. After the questions, give an answer key that explains why each answer is correct and cites a reliable source for the key facts. Make the wrong options plausible, not obvious. Flag any question where the "correct" answer is genuinely debated among experts, and explain the debate. Keep questions and answers clearly separated so I can test myself first.

Summarize this paper for someone new to the field: [paper title, link, or upload]. Cover the research question, what they did, what they found, and why it matters, in plain language. Define technical terms on first use. Separately note the study's limitations and how strong the evidence actually is — sample size, method, whether it's been replicated. Don't overstate the findings. If the paper's claims are contested or preliminary, say so. Cite the specific sections you're drawing from.

Compare the leading theories or methods for [topic, e.g. approaches to X]. For each, explain the core idea, its main strengths, its known weaknesses, and the kind of evidence that supports it. Note where the field currently leans and where it's genuinely unsettled. Cite peer-reviewed or authoritative sources, prefer recent work, and flag any that are outdated or superseded. Don't force a single winner if the evidence doesn't support one. Format as a table plus a short synthesis.