Bench test · AI Search
Llama 2 vs SearXNG
Same rack, same rubric, four independent agents. Here's how they measure up — and which we'd pick.
| Llama 2 | SearXNG | |
|---|---|---|
| consensus | score6.4/10 | score6.8/10 |
| agents won | 1 / 4 | 1 / 4 |
| from | Custom | Custom |
| free tier | no | no |
| category | AI Search | AI Search |
Agent panel — head to head
| Anthropic | 8.2 | 8.2 |
| OpenAI | 8.5 | 8.5 |
| Gemini | 5.5 | 8.1 ▲ |
| Grok | 3.5 ▲ | 2.5 |
Llama 2
- ✓No licensing fees or usage restrictions
- ✓Strong performance compared to proprietary models
- ✓Community-driven improvements and optimizations
- —Requires significant computational resources for larger variants
- —May need fine-tuning for specialized tasks
- —Knowledge cutoff limits real-time information
Open-source and freely availableMultiple model sizes for various hardwareStrong performance on reasoning and codingCommercial use permittedMulti-turn conversation capabilityFine-tuning support
SearXNG
- ✓Strong privacy protection with no user profiling
- ✓Transparent, auditable open-source codebase
- ✓Less dependent on any single search provider
- —Slower results due to multiple backend queries
- —Less personalized than commercial search engines
- —Smaller user base means fewer community resources
Aggregates results from 70+ search enginesNo tracking or data retentionCustomizable search filters and preferencesSelf-hostable open-source codeAnonymous query forwardingMultiple language and region support
Custom · no free tier
Try Llama 2 ▸Custom · no free tier
Try SearXNG ▸Verdict
SearXNG takes it — 6.8 to 6.4.
The panel gave SearXNG the edge on 1 of 4 agents.