Algolia offers AI-powered solutions to improve online search and discovery experiences, with tools for business teams and APIs for developers that help to improve user engagement and conversions across websites, apps, and e-commerce platforms.
$0
per month 10k search requests + 100k records
Apache Solr
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Apache Solr is an open-source enterprise search server.
N/A
Elasticsearch
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Elasticsearch is an enterprise search tool from Elastic in Mountain View, California.
$16
per month
Pricing
Algolia
Apache Solr
Elasticsearch
Editions & Modules
Build
Free
per month Up to 10,000 search requests + 1 Million records
Grow Plus
Free / Pay as you go
per month 10K searches/month & 100K records included; $1.75 per extra 1K searches, $0.40 per extra 1K records
Grow
Free / Pay as you go
per month 10K search requests & 100K records included; $0.50 per extra 1K searches, $0.40 per extra 1K records
Elevate
custom
per year
Elevate
Custom
per year Custom search requests and records — volume-based discounts available
No answers on this topic
Standard
$16.00
per month
Gold
$19.00
per month
Platinum
$22.00
per month
Enterprise
Contact Sales
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Algolia
Apache Solr
Elasticsearch
Free Trial
Yes
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
Optional
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
Pay as you go, scale instantly, or upgrade anytime for advanced features and capabilities.
By far Elasticsearch is the prime competitor that comes into the picture when thinking about Algolia. Where Algolia surpasses Elasticsearch by miles is in performance. Algolia is search on steroids. However, Elasticsearch supersedes Algolia in terms of flexibility and cost. Elas…
Elasticsearch is its direct competitor, but I would say that it is more focused on performance and less focused on aesthetics and recommendations. If you are thinking of getting Algolia, I would recommend that you also compare it at least to Elasticsearch. Either one is a good …
Algolia prioritizes simplicity and quick setup, excelling in user-friendly search experiences. Elasticsearch offers versatility and complexity, suitable for intricate scenarios, while Amazon CloudSearch provides essential features and seamless integration within the AWS …
Algolia works out of the box, you don't need to setup a lot to see how it works for you. Its also pretty flexible and customizable if you need to. With Elasticsearch you have to think about deployment strategies, where to host it, how to send data for it and build custom …
Mostly for instant search capability, then because SFCC option can be easier to use, but front end capabilities where not nice at the time we implemented it. Elasticsearch is more similar with database and index management, but was more expensive at the time + Algolia cartridge …
There are many open source search products available. Prior to Algolia, we used an in-house search system adopted from an open-source system. While this was nice in that we could modify it in any way we wanted, it also required dedicated engineering and setting up many …
Offloading search logic to Algolia saved dev time and allowed our engineers to focus on higher-impact features instead of maintaining complex queries or custom search infra.
While AWS's offering is a typically cheaper solution, it requires a lot of work to gain any of the core features of Algolia. The cost of dev time and long-term maintenance would be more than the costs incurred with Algolia, which is why it made the most sense financially. On …
There were few alternatives when we started by using Algolia and it was the better rated in terms of price & performance. Now there are more alternatives, but we keep algolia as is isolated from the rest of our stack so that we can have better performance & control.
Algolia provides the best user experience, ease of integration and implementation, extremely high performance on large catalogs. The features offered are powerful and complete, with machine learning systems to improve result personalization. The service management can be done …
Algolia got us up and running faster and more easily than if we'd managed elastic search and it's configuration by ourselves. Upfront and ongoing costs and complications/ custom implementations were removed from the equation by choosing Algolia out of the gate.
Amazon is great for huge companies that have a team to support this feature in particular but if you are a small to medium business, Algolia is more manageable.
At the time we did a TD on a number of different solutions, and Algolia was selected for its features and functionality. Why we couldn’t account for at the time was the lack of customer service and tech support, or problems that would regularly and repeatedly occur within their …
Algolia works well in tandem with Magento and provides a large number of tools and features that provide greater control and adaptability as compared to other solutions we reviewed. Algolia has demonstrated its commitment to continual innovation, providing access to next-gen …
Algolia does not require your own setup so we could get going fast. Algolia is known for being fast and highly available. It requires less domain knowledge. It is a lot more expensive though. Another plus is that is it very easy to sync data to it. You can backfill millions of …
Algolia at first seemed and proved to be the fastest compared to the other search engines. It is very easy to implement. Also, it had a 24x7 support which proved to be very useful. It is also useful for all types of clients weather it be organizations or individuals. It can …
Algolia was by far and away the easiest of the three to implement. PostgreSQL has many search modules that can be used on top of your usual database, however, none are particularly efficient and can quickly become overwhelmed at scale. Equally, they do not handle business …
We selected Algolia because it was ridiculously fast and we liked the direction the company was going. We also did not want to deal with a self hosted solution like Solr.
Between Solr and ElasticSearch, there is a constant struggle to pick the best one. ElasticSearch is part of ELK and ties in well with LogStash and Kibana which makes it great for logs and big data stuff. Add some logs and see which works best for your particular access methods …
We tried to use both Elasticsearch and Swiftype with Drupal 8 but there are currently no good modules that integrate Drupal with those solutions. So Solr was really the only option for a Drupal 8 web site. It's not as easy to learn or use as Swiftype, but in the end I think it …
We tryed to promote Redis as cache solution for application, in order to replace Apache Solr, but it won't go well. Redis best pratices requires some more computer resources. With Elastic Search, the use case was another, and don't compete with Apache Solr.
Apache Solr in general stacks up very well to its competitors, it provides much of the same features and performance and has the benefits of being an open-source project with an active contributor base that works consistently and improves the platform. Depending on your setup …
Apache Solr is the closest competitor to ElasticSearch from a search engine perspective. ElasticSearch is simple and streamlined in it's configuration. When taken as a whole, Apache Solr is more robust as a storage engine from a developer perspective, ElasticSearch has the …
Elasticsearch is the most well-known and supported free data platform that we identified. We are taking advantage of community knowledge and practices. In terms of flexibility and breadth of use cases no other competitor came close to Elasticsearch. We've tried Solr in the past …
Elasticsearch and Solr are both based on Lucene, but the user community for Elasticsearch is much stronger, and setting up a cluster is easier. Splunk is very well suited for Log indexing and searching but is not nearly as flexible as Elasticsearch. Couchbase is a great NoSQL …
Elasticsearch is very well packed in a broad set of features, ranging from customization capabilities to security and add-ons, and also comes with a great visualization tool named Kibana. Most of the competitors are strong in some of these areas, but I know of no other that's …
Almost no one uses Solr anymore--most have migrated to Elasticsearch. I've never tried it myself but I heard Solr is much more difficult to configure and because it doesn't use a REST API, it locks you into Java and XML. XML--ick! Lucene: Elasticsearch is built using Lucene …
All database systems have things they are good at, and things they aren't as good at. Riak/SOLR is great as a K/V store, but SOLR cannot handle requests as fast as ElasticSearch. In fact, SOLR is the reason we had to migrate to ElasticSearch. Redis is great at SET operations …
When we first evaluated Elasticsearch, we compared it with alternatives like traditional RDBMS products (Postgres, MySQL) as well as other noSQL solutions like Cassandra & MongoDB. For our use case, Elasticsearch delivered on two fronts. First, we got a world-class search …
NEST library is excellent, excellent performance, and scalability (we used a cluster of 2 nodes, and most the queries completed in ms, some may take up to 2s.
Elasticsearch is widely popular and it's mostly free. Its ecosystem, ability to scale, ease to set up, integration with other systems, highly usable API make it really great compared to its competition.
Elasticsearch is DevOps friendly; it is easy for installation and management of a node/cluster. It is very friendly for developers by providing the REST API out of the box, reducing the development time.
Elasticsearch is based off of Apache Lucene. You get the same power as well as a JSON response. REST API is simple and easy to understand. Other options include XML responses which is much more complicated to parse at times.
For our application, ElasticSearch fulfilled all the criteria we were looking for. Something that's easy to scale and flexible. I think ElasticSearch works better that Solr with modern real-time search applications. Also, ElasticSearch is easy to integrate with. ElasticSearch …
Solr is the only other alternative product I've used. Elasticsearch in comparison is a much better product. The query language in elasticsearch along with the cluster management and sharding makes Elasticsearch a clear winner.
Ability to support JSON queries, Percolator, ease to set up and custom routing were some of the reasons why we decided to use Elasticsearch instead of Solr.
Algolia is both well-suited to replace Shopify's out-of-the-box search and to very large sites with millions of products in their catalog. Algolia provides a specialized solution that benefits from very large R&D budgets and ongoing investment. Algolia offers a more retail- and open-design solution than competitors such as Amazon or Google search, which offer fewer options and fewer features.
Solr spins up nicely and works effectively for small enterprise environments providing helpful mechanisms for fuzzy searches and facetted searching. For larger enterprises with complex business solutions you'll find the need to hire an expert Solr engineer to optimize the powerful platform to your needs. Internationalization is tricky with Solr and many hosting solutions may limit you to a latin character set.
Elasticsearch is a really scalable solution that can fit a lot of needs, but the bigger and/or those needs become, the more understanding & infrastructure you will need for your instance to be running correctly. Elasticsearch is not problem-free - you can get yourself in a lot of trouble if you are not following good practices and/or if are not managing the cluster correctly. Licensing is a big decision point here as Elasticsearch is a middleware component - be sure to read the licensing agreement of the version you want to try before you commit to it. Same goes for long-term support - be sure to keep yourself in the know for this aspect you may end up stuck with an unpatched version for years.
Users get instant feedback as they type, even with complex filters like brand, model, price range, and financing eligibility. This speed significantly improves engagement and reduces bounce.
A user searching for “Camry 2020” or even “Camary 20” still sees relevant Toyota Camry listings from 2020. This reduces friction, especially on mobile where spelling errors are common.
Algolia handles multi-faceted filters efficiently. For example, a user can filter by location, transmission type, color, or inspection status without any lag.
We fine-tune the ranking of search results based on what matters to our business—like prioritizing cars with higher margins or better availability in key cities.
We can experiment with different ranking formulas or UI variations to improve KPIs like lead conversion or time-to-first-interaction.
Easy to get started with Apache Solr. Whether it is tackling a setup issue or trying to learn some of the more advanced features, there are plenty of resources to help you out and get you going.
Performance. Apache Solr allows for a lot of custom tuning (if needed) and provides great out of the box performance for searching on large data sets.
Maintenance. After setting up Solr in a production environment there are plenty of tools provided to help you maintain and update your application. Apache Solr comes with great fault tolerance built in and has proven to be very reliable.
As I mentioned before, Elasticsearch's flexible data model is unparalleled. You can nest fields as deeply as you want, have as many fields as you want, but whatever you want in those fields (as long as it stays the same type), and all of it will be searchable and you don't need to even declare a schema beforehand!
Elastic, the company behind Elasticsearch, is super strong financially and they have a great team of devs and product managers working on Elasticsearch. When I first started using ES 3 years ago, I was 90% impressed and knew it would be a good fit. 3 years later, I am 200% impressed and blown away by how far it has come and gotten even better. If there are features that are missing or you don't think it's fast enough right now, I bet it'll be suitable next year because the team behind it is so dang fast!
Elasticsearch is really, really stable. It takes a lot to bring down a cluster. It's self-balancing algorithms, leader-election system, self-healing properties are state of the art. We've never seen network failures or hard-drive corruption or CPU bugs bring down an ES cluster.
Better integration of features (ex. synonyms feature is great but isn't respected by their re-ranking product)
Tooling to reduce spam search queries being triaged by system/logged to analytics panels
More automated summaries of analytics (ie. recommend synonyms to add, trends noticed in search volume in specific areas of site, easier ways to leverage API vs using website UI)
These examples are due to the way we use Apache Solr. I think we have had the same problems with other NoSQL databases (but perhaps not the same solution). High data volumes of data and a lot of users were the causes.
We have lot of classifications and lot of data for each classification. This gave us several problems:
First: We couldn't keep all our data in Solr. Then we have all data in our MySQL DB and searching data in Solr. So we need to be sure to update and match the 2 databases in the same time.
Second: We needed several load balanced Solr databases.
Third: We needed to update all the databases and keep old data status.
If I don't speak about problems due to our lack of experience, the main Solr problem came from frequency of updates vs validation of several database. We encountered several locks due to this (our ops team didn't want to use real clustering, so all DB weren't updated). Problem messages were not always clear and we several days to understand the problems.
Algolia is a great tool, we didn't have to build a custom search platform (using Elasticsearch for example) for a while. It has great flexibility and the set of libraries and SDKs make using it really easy. However, there are two major blockers for our future: - Their pricing it's still a bit hard to predict (when you are used to other kind of metrics for usage) so I really recommend to take a look at it first. - Integrating it within a CI/CD pipeline is difficult to replicate staging/development environments based on Production.
Personally I find the Algolia integration not very complicated and the service super reactive. In terms of configuration, it's quite complete, at the end what matters is what we are able to index on Algolia. With rich data, the tool is amazing and a lot of things are possible.
It takes some time to deploy and currectly maintein it. And also, to learn how to use and integrate in the enviroment as well. Once you get theses steps done, it usability is very simple, and almost of the time it don't require no further attention on it. Even for maintence, if you deploy it on a cluster mode, it is very reliable and easy to take one host down.
To get started with Elasticsearch, you don't have to get very involved in configuring what really is an incredibly complex system under the hood. You simply install the package, run the service, and you're immediately able to begin using it. You don't need to learn any sort of query language to add data to Elasticsearch or perform some basic searching. If you're used to any sort of RESTful API, getting started with Elasticsearch is a breeze. If you've never interacted with a RESTful API directly, the journey may be a little more bumpy. Overall, though, it's incredibly simple to use for what it's doing under the covers.
Performance is always a major concern when integrating services with our client's websites. Our tests and real-world experience show that Algolia is highly performant. We have more extremely satisfied with the speed of both the search service APIs and the backend administrative and analytic interface.
It’s non existent. No tech support and no customer service… my application was blocked and is currently inactive causing huge business disruption, and I’m still waiting days later for a response to an issue which could be resolved very very quickly if only they would respond. Very poor from a company of that size
We've only used it as an opensource tooling. We did not purchase any additional support to roll out the elasticsearch software. When rolling out the application on our platform we've used the documentation which was available online. During our test phases we did not experience any bugs or issues so we did not rely on support at all.
Algolia gives way more control for a non-developer than AWS Elasticsearch Service. Previously we'd have to have our developers make adjustments to site search relevancy, typos, prioritizing certain attributes over others, etc. but now the marketing and website team can do that themselves in the Algolia dashboard
We tried to use both Elasticsearch and Swiftype with Drupal 8 but there are currently no good modules that integrate Drupal with those solutions. So Solr was really the only option for a Drupal 8 web site. It's not as easy to learn or use as Swiftype, but in the end I think it will be a little less expensive and offer more customization and flexibility.
As far as we are concerned, Elasticsearch is the gold standard and we have barely evaluated any alternatives. You could consider it an alternative to a relational or NoSQL database, so in cases where those suffice, you don't need Elasticsearch. But if you want powerful text-based search capabilities across large data sets, Elasticsearch is the way to go.
Overall is a scalable tool as the environment and the backend functions are the same and many things are done directly on the tool so without the need of further specific developments. However some things could be improved such as documentation for integration that could help in doing whitelabel solutions
Users who had abandoned our product (attributing slow search speeds as the reason) returned to us thanks to Algolia
We used Algolia as our product's backbone to relaunch it, making it the center of all search on our platform which paid off massively.
Considering we relaunched our product, with Aloglia functioning as its engine, we got a lot of press coverage for our highly improved search speeds.
One negative would be how important it is to read the fine print when it comes to the technical documentation. As pricing is done on the basis of records and indexes, it is not made apparent that there is a size limit for your records or how quickly these numbers can increase for any particular use case. Be very wary of these as they can quite easily exceed your allotted budget for the product.
We have had great luck with implementing Elasticsearch for our search and analytics use cases.
While the operational burden is not minimal, operating a cluster of servers, using a custom query language, writing Elasticsearch-specific bulk insert code, the performance and the relative operational ease of Elasticsearch are unparalleled.
We've easily saved hundreds of thousands of dollars implementing Elasticsearch vs. RDBMS vs. other no-SQL solutions for our specific set of problems.