Bench test · AI Search
SearXNG vs Groq
Same rack, same rubric, four independent agents. Here's how they measure up — and which we'd pick.
| SearXNG | Groq | |
|---|---|---|
| consensus | score6.8/10 | score7.4/10 |
| agents won | 0 / 4 | 2 / 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 | 8.1 | 8.5 ▲ |
| Grok | 2.5 | 4.5 ▲ |
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
Groq
- ✓Fastest inference speeds in the market
- ✓Cost-effective for high-volume queries
- ✓Great for real-time applications
- —Limited model selection compared to competitors
- —Newer platform with smaller ecosystem
- —Hardware availability may be constrained
Ultra-low latency inferenceCustom LPU hardware accelerationSupport for multiple open-source modelsStreaming API for real-time responsesHigh throughput processingDeveloper-friendly API integration
Custom · no free tier
Try SearXNG ▸Custom · no free tier
Try Groq ▸Verdict
Groq takes it — 7.4 to 6.8.
The panel gave Groq the edge on 2 of 4 agents.