Bench test · AI Search
Spring vs Searx.me
Same rack, same rubric, four independent agents. Here's how they measure up — and which we'd pick.
| Spring | Searx.me | |
|---|---|---|
| consensus | score6.3/10 | score5.8/10 |
| agents won | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 |
| from | Custom | Custom |
| free tier | no | no |
| category | AI Search | AI Search |
Agent panel — head to head
| Anthropic | 6.5 | 7.8 ▲ |
| OpenAI | 7.5 | 8.5 ▲ |
| Gemini | 7.0 ▲ | 3.5 |
| Grok | 4.0 ▲ | 3.5 |
Spring
- ✓Faster answers than traditional search
- ✓Built-in source attribution increases credibility
- ✓Reduces need to visit multiple websites
- —Potential for AI hallucinations or inaccuracies
- —Dependent on web source quality and availability
Real-time web search with AI synthesisAutomatic source citations and summariesIntelligent answer generationMulti-source information aggregationClean, organized response formatting
Searx.me
- ✓Strong privacy protection with no data collection
- ✓Comprehensive results from diverse sources
- ✓Transparent, auditable open-source code
- —Slower response times due to aggregation
- —Less refined results than specialized engines
- —Occasional downtime and reliability issues
Aggregates results from 70+ search enginesNo tracking or cookies by defaultCustomizable search parameters and enginesAnonymous query forwardingOpen-source and self-hostableMultiple language and region support
Custom · no free tier
Try Spring ▸Custom · no free tier
Try Searx.me ▸Verdict
Spring takes it — 6.3 to 5.8.
The panel gave Spring the edge on 2 of 4 agents.