Bench test · AI Search
SearXNG vs Lex.page
Same rack, same rubric, four independent agents. Here's how they measure up — and which we'd pick.
| SearXNG | Lex.page | |
|---|---|---|
| consensus | score6.8/10 | score6.9/10 |
| agents won | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 |
| from | Custom | Custom |
| free tier | no | no |
| category | AI Search | AI Search |
Agent panel — head to head
| Anthropic | 8.2 ▲ | 6.5 |
| OpenAI | 8.5 ▲ | 7.5 |
| Gemini | 8.1 | 8.2 ▲ |
| Grok | 2.5 | 5.5 ▲ |
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
Lex.page
- ✓Combines writing and research in one tool
- ✓Minimalist, distraction-free design
- ✓Fast AI-powered content suggestions
- —Limited offline functionality
- —Requires internet connection for search features
- —Smaller feature set compared to comprehensive suites
AI-assisted writing and editingIntegrated web search functionalityReal-time research capabilitiesMarkdown supportDistraction-free writing interfaceContent generation assistance
Custom · no free tier
Try SearXNG ▸Custom · no free tier
Try Lex.page ▸Verdict
Lex.page takes it — 6.9 to 6.8 (a photo finish).
The panel gave Lex.page the edge on 2 of 4 agents. It's close enough that SearXNG is a fair pick if it fits your workflow better.