This is a cursory review of all the indexing search engines I have been able to find.
The three dominant English search engines with their own indexes1 are Google, Bing, and Yandex (GBY). Many alternatives to GBY exist, but almost none of them have their own results; instead, they just source their results from GBY.
With that in mind, I decided to test and catalog all the different indexing search engines I could find. I prioritized breadth over depth, and encourage readers to try the engines out themselves if they’d like more information.
I primarily evaluated English-speaking search engines because that’s my primary language. With some difficulty, I could probably evaluate a Spanish one; however, I wasn’t able to find many Spanish-language engines powered by their own crawlers.
This page is a “living document” that I plan on updating indefinitely. Check for updates once in a while if you find this page interesting. Feel free to send me suggestions, updates, and corrections; I’d especially appreciate help from those who speak languages besides English and can evaluate a non-English indexing search engine. Contact info is in the article footer.
Google, Microsoft (the company behind Bing), and Yandex aren’t just search engine companies; they’re content and ad companies as well. For example, Google hosts video content on YouTube and Microsoft hosts social media content on LinkedIn. This gives these companies a powerful incentive to prioritize their own content. They are able to do so even if they claim that they treat their own content the same as any other: since they have complete access to their search engines' inner workings, they can tailor their content pages to better fit their algorithms and tailor their algorithms to work well on their own content. They can also index their own content without limitations but throttle indexing for other crawlers.2
One way to avoid this conflict of interest is to use search engines that aren’t linked to major content providers; i.e., use engines with their own independent indexes.
There’s also a practical, non-ideological reason to try other engines: different providers have different results. Websites that are hard to find on one search engine might be easy to find on another, so using more indexes and ranking algorithms results in access to more content.
I mainly evaluated link results, and didn’t focus too much on (often glaring) privacy issues, “enhanced” or “instant” results (e.g. Wikipedia sidebars, related searches, Stack Exchange answers), or other elements.
I compared results for esoteric queries side-by-side; if the first 20 results were (nearly) identical to another engine’s results (though perhaps in a slightly different order), they were likely sourced externally and not from an independent index.
I tried to pick queries that should have a good number of results and show variance between search engines. An incomplete selection of queries I tested:
- “vim”, “emacs”, “neovim”, and “nvimrc”: Search engines with relevant results for “nvimrc” typically have a big index. Finding relevant results for the text editors “vim” and “emacs” instead of other topics that share the name is a challenging task.
- “vim cleaner”: should return results related to a line of cleaning products rather than the Correct Text Editor.
- “Seirdy”: My site is relatively low-traffic, but my nickname is pretty unique and visible on several of the highest-traffic sites out there.
- “Project London”: a small movie made with volunteers and FLOSS without much advertising. If links related to the movie show up, the engine’s really good.
- “oppenheimer”: a name that could refer to many things. Without context, it should refer to the physicist who worked on the atomic bomb in Los Alamos. Other historical queries: “magna carta” (intermediate), “the prince” (very hard).
General indexing search-engines
Large indexes, good results
These are large engines that pass all the above tests and more.
- Google: the biggest index. Allows submitting pages and sitemaps for crawling, but requires login. Powers a few other engines:
- SAPO (Portuguese interface, can work with English results)
- Bing: the runner-up. Allows submitting pages and sitemaps for crawling, but requires login. Its index powers many other engines:
- Disconnect Search5
- Million Short
- Yippy search6
- Partially powers MetaGer by default; this can be turned off
- At this point, I stopped adding Bing-based search engines. There are just too many.
- Yandex: originally a Russian search engine, it now has an English version. Some Russian results bleed into its English site. Allows submitting pages and sitemaps for crawling, but requires login. Powers:
- Epic Search
- Occasionally powers DuckDuckGo’s link results instead of Bing.
- Mojeek: Claims to be privacy-oriented. Quality isn’t at Google/Bing/Yandex’s level, but it’s not bad either. If I had to use Mojeek as my default general search engine, I’d live. Partially powers eTools.ch.
- Petal search: gopetal.com and petalsearch.com. A search engine by Huawei that recently switched from searching for Android apps to general search. Despite its surprisingly good results, I wouldn’t recommend it due to privacy concerns. Requires an account to submit sites. I discovered this via my access logs.
Smaller indexes, relevant results
These engines pass most of the tests listed in the “methodology” section.
- Right Dao: very fast, good results. Passes the tests fairly well. It plans on including query-based ads if/when its user base grows.8
- Gigablast: It’s been around for a while and also sports a classic web directory. Searches are a bit slow, and it charges to submit sites for crawling. It powers Private.sh. Gigablast is tied with Right Dao for quality.
- Gowiki: Very young, small index, but shows promise. I discovered this in the seirdy.one access logs. Currently only available in the US.
Smaller indexes, hit-and-miss
These engines fail badly at a few important tests.
- seekport: The interface is in German but it supports searching in English just fine. The default language is selected by your locale. It’s really good considering its small index; it hasn’t heard of less common terms (e.g. “Seirdy”), but it’s able to find relevant results in other tests.
- Exalead: slow, quality is hit-and-miss. Its indexer claims to crawl the DMOZ directory, which has since shut down and been replaced by the Curlie directory. No relevant results for “Oppenheimer” and some other history-related queries. Allows submitting individual URLs for indexing, but requires solving a Google reCAPTCHA and entering an email address.
- wbsrch: In addition to its generalist search, it also has many other utilities related to domain name statistics. Failed multiple tests. Its index is a bit dated; it has an old backlog of sites it hasn’t finished indexing. It also has several per-language indexes.
- ExactSeek: small index, disproportionately dominated by big sites. Failed multiple tests. Allows submitting individual URLs for crawling, but requires entering an email address and receiving a newsletter. Webmaster tools seem to heavily push for paid SEO options.
- Meorca: a search engine that claims not to “index pornography or illegal content websites”. It also features a public blog with a marketplace and free games. Allows submitting URLs, but requires a full name, email, phone number, and “business name” to do so. Discovered in the seirdy.one access logs.
- search.tl: Generalist search for one TLD at a time (defaults to .com). I’m not sure why you’d want to always limit your searches to a single TLD, but now you can.9 There isn’t any visible UI for changing the TLD for available results; you need to add/change the
tldURL parameter. For example, to search .org sites, append
&tld=orgto the URL. It seems to be connected to Amidalla, but Amidalla doesn’t seem to currently be operational. Amidalla allows users to manually add URLs to its index and directory; I have yet to see if doing so impacts search.tl results.
Unusable engines, irrelevant results
Results from these search engines don’t seem at all useful.
- YaCy: community-made index; slow. Results are awful/irrelevant, but can be useful for intranet or custom search.
- Scopia: only seems to be available via the MetaGer metasearch engine after turning off Bing and news results. Tiny index, very low-quality.
- Active Search Results: very poor quality
- Crawlson: young, slow. In this category because its index has a cap of 10 URLs per domain. I initially discovered Crawlson in the seirdy.one access logs. The site seems to be down right now, so I didn’t link it.
- Anoox: Results are few and irrelevant; fails to find any results for basic terms. Allows site submission. It’s also a lightweight social network and claims to be powered by its users, letting members vote on listings to alter rankings.
- Plumb: Almost all queries return no results; when this happens, it loads Google’s Custom Search scripts from
cse.google.comonto the page to do a client-side Google search. This can be mitigated by using a browser addon to block
cse.google.comfrom loading any scripts. Plumb claims that this is a temporary measure while its index grows, and they’re planning on getting rid of this. Allows submitting URLs, but requires solving an hCaptcha; as of 2021-03-20, the hCaptcha is broken (missing sitekey). This engine is very new; hopefully as it improves, it could graduate from this section. Its Chief Product Officer previously founded the Gibiru search engine which shares the same affiliates and (for now) the same index; the indexes will diverge with time.
- Yioop!: A FLOSS search engine that boasts a very impressive feature-set: it can parse sitemaps, feeds, and a variety of markup formats; it can import pre-curated data in forms such as access logs, Usenet posts, and WARC archives; it also supports feed-based news search. Despite the impressive feature set, Yioop’s results are few and irrelevant due to its small index. It allows submitting sites for crawling. Like Meorca, Yioop has social features such as blogs, wikis, and a chat bot API.
These indexing search engines don’t have a Google-like “ask me anything” endgame; they’re trying to do something different.
- Wiby: wiby.me and wiby.org: I love this one. It focuses on smaller independent sites that capture the spirit of the “early” web. It’s more focused on “discovering” new interesting pages that match a set of keywords than finding a specific resources. I like to think of Wiby as an engine for surfing, not searching. Runnaroo occasionally features a hit from Wiby. If you have a small site or blog that isn’t very “commercial”, consider submitting it to the index.
- Search My Site: Similar to Wiby, but only indexes user-submitted personal and independent sites. It optionally supports IndieAuth.
- Quor: seems to mainly index large news sites.
I’m unable to evaluate these engines properly since I don’t speak the necessary languages. English searches on these are a hit-or-miss. I might have made a few mistakes in this category.
- Baidu: Chinese
- Qihoo 360: Chinese. I’m not sure how independent this one is.
- Sogou: Chinese
- Yisou: Chinese
- Naver: Korean.
- Seznam: Czech, seems relatively privacy-friendly. Discovered in the seirdy.one access logs.
- Cốc Cốc: Vietnamese
- go.mail.ru: Russian
- Parsijoo: Persian
- search.ch: Regional search engine for Switzerland; users can restrict searches to their local regions.
- fastbot: German
- Moose.at: German (Austria-based)
- Ask.com: the main site shut down, but subdomains like uk.ask.com are still alive. They claim to outsource search results. The results seem similar to Google, Bing, and Yandex; however, I can’t pinpoint exactly where their results are coming from.
- Not evaluated: Apple’s search. It’s only accessible through a search widget in iOS and macOS and shows very few results. This might change; see the next section.
- Partially evaluated: Infinity Search: young, small index. It recently split into a paid offering with the main index and Infinity Decentralized, the latter of which allows users to select from community-hosted crawlers. I managed to try it out before it became a paid offering, and it seemed decent; however, I wasn’t able to run the tests listed in the “Methodology” section. Allows submitting URLs and sitemaps into a text box, no other work required.
These engines aren’t ready yet; their indexes are either in a proof-of-concept phase with a handful of sites, or aren’t available yet.
- Apple: given the activity of the AppleBot crawler lately, their index will almost certainly grow to a size large enough to power a general search engine soon. Check your server’s access logs; there’s a good chance it’s crawled your site if you have a few backlinks.
- Brave announced that it will start its own independent search engine based on the now-discontinued Cliqz. I don’t endorse the company, but I hope its results will be available through metasearch engines like Searx.
Matt from Gigablast also gave me some helpful information on GBY which I included in the “Rationale” section. He’s written more about big tech in the Gigablast blog.
Yes, “indexes” is an acceptable plural form of the word “index”. The word “indices” sounds weird to me outside a math class. ↩︎
Matt from Gigablast told me that indexing YouTube or LinkedIn will get you blocked if you aren’t Google or Microsoft. I imagine that you could do so by getting special permission if you’re a megacorporation. ↩︎
DuckDuckGo has a crawler called DuckDuckBot. This crawler doesn’t impact the linked results displayed; it just grabs favicons and scrapes data for a few instant answers ↩︎
Qwant claims to also use its own crawler for results, but it’s still mostly Bing. Try a side-by-side comparison; I found that it doesn’t seem to have anything besides Bing results. ↩︎
Disconnect Search allows users to have results proxied from Bing or Yahoo, but Yahoo sources its results from Bing. ↩︎
Yippy claims to be powered by a certain IBM brand (a brand that could correspond to any number of products) and annotates results with the phrase “Yippy Index”, but a side-by-side comparison with Bing and other Bing-based engines revealed results to be nearly identical. ↩︎
Some search engines support the
site:search operator to limit searches to subpages/subdomains of a single site or TLD.
site:.one, for instance, limits searches to websites with the “.one” TLD. ↩︎