Skip to content

smartcat-labs/sc-vectordb-comparison

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Latest commit

Β 

History

8 Commits
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 

Repository files navigation

Vector Database Comprehensive Comparison

A detailed technical analysis of leading vector database solutions across performance, scalability, indexing, querying, data management, and cost considerations.


🎯 Quick Decision Framework

Note: This framework provides immediate guidance based on common patterns. Detailed criteria, benchmarks, and technical analysis are covered in the comprehensive sections below.

Scenario Recommended Solution Why This Choice Typical Budget
πŸš€ MVP/Prototype Qdrant Free or TypeSense Zero/low cost, production-ready, easy setup $0-100/month
πŸ“± Production App (<10M queries/month) Pinecone or Qdrant Cloud Managed, reliable, good performance $70-500/month
🏒 Enterprise Search OpenSearch or SingleStore Proven at scale, security features, compliance $1000+/month
🌍 Global Consumer App Algolia or Pinecone (Multi-region) Global CDN, low latency worldwide $500-5000/month
🎨 Multimodal AI (Text+Images) Marqo or Weaviate Built-in multimodal capabilities $200-1000/month
πŸ’° Budget-Conscious Scale Self-hosted Qdrant or TypeSense Best performance per dollar $100-1000/month

πŸ“Š Performance Metrics Comparison

Key Insight: Performance metrics are interconnected - optimizing for one often impacts others. Hardware resources and algorithm tuning significantly affect all measurements.

Performance Overview

Performance is fundamental to vector database utility, directly impacting user experience and application feasibility. The trade-offs between query latency, throughput, indexing speed, and recall accuracy require careful consideration based on specific use case requirements.

Performance Comparison Matrix

Database Query Latency Throughput Indexing Speed Recall Accuracy Scale Capacity Hardware Optimization
Qdrant 20-50ms 626 QPS Very fast 99.5% Billions+ Rust optimization
Pinecone p2: <50ms, s1: >100ms 10-150 QPS/pod Real-time updates 91.5-99% Billions+ Auto-managed, pod-dependent
Algolia Keyword: <10ms, Hybrid: <20ms Variable by search type Real-time High (proprietary) Large-scale Global CDN + compression
SingleStore Competitive 2nd best (benchANT) Fastest load times 88.8-91.5% Petabyte SQL + vector optimization
Marqo 72.11ms P50, 140ms P99 (V2) 157.7 QPS Fast (Vespa backend) 97% (V2) Multi-billion GPU support
TypeSense <50ms (lexical) Moderate Real-time Competitive Millions-Billions Optional GPU
OpenSearch 10s+ to <200ms* 16-147 QPS 9.5x faster (v3.0 GPU) 87.9% Billions+ GPU acceleration (v3.0)
Weaviate <200ms 15 QPS Moderate 80.6% Billions+ Modular processing

*OpenSearch: Highly variable performance - requires significant tuning, can achieve A-grade with proper configuration

πŸ† Performance Champions

⚑ Lowest Latency Leaders

  • Algolia: Single-digit milliseconds for keyword search, <20ms for hybrid
  • Qdrant: 20-50ms in production case studies
  • Pinecone (p2 pods): Sub-50ms for high-performance configurations
  • TypeSense: Sub-50ms for lexical search scenarios

πŸš€ Highest Throughput Leaders

  • Qdrant: 626.5 QPS with excellent recall
  • Marqo V2: 157.7 QPS with significant improvements over V1 (147.8 QPS)
  • Pinecone: 10-150 QPS per pod (requires multiple pods for high throughput)

πŸ“ˆ Best Recall Accuracy

  • Qdrant: 99.5% recall with high performance
  • Pinecone: 91.5-99% recall (varies significantly by benchmark)
  • Marqo V2: 97% recall (major improvement from V1's 81%)

⚑ Fastest Indexing

  • SingleStore: Fastest load times in benchmarks
  • OpenSearch v3.0: 9.3x faster with GPU acceleration
  • Real-time leaders: Pinecone, Algolia, TypeSense for immediate updates

πŸ—οΈ Scalability and Architecture Comparison

Architectural Philosophy: Serverless vs. distributed provisioned systems offer different trade-offs between operational simplicity and performance predictability.

Scalability Overview

Modern applications demand systems capable of handling billions of vectors while maintaining high concurrency for both queries and data ingestion. Architecture choices fundamentally impact scalability characteristics and operational requirements.

Scalability Comparison Matrix

Database Data Volume Capacity Concurrency Support Architecture Model Scaling Approach Deployment Options Consistency Model
Pinecone Billions+ vectors Variable (pod-dependent) Serverless + Pod-based Horizontal (pod scaling) + Serverless Managed only Eventually consistent
OpenSearch (k-NN) Billions+ (16k max dimensions)* High (with proper configuration) Distributed cluster with v3.0 enhancements** Horizontal + Vertical Managed + Self-hosted Eventually consistent
Algolia NeuralSearch Large-scale High (managed) Distributed + CDN with multi-tenant isolation Horizontal (managed) Managed only Eventually consistent
Marqo Multi-billion High Distributed (Vespa backend) Horizontal Managed + Self-hosted Eventually consistent
TypeSense Millions to billions High Distributed cluster Horizontal Managed + Self-hosted Eventually consistent
Qdrant Billions+ vectors Very high Distributed BASE model Horizontal + Vertical Managed + Self-hosted Eventually consistent
Weaviate Billions+ vectors High Distributed + Sharding Horizontal Managed + Self-hosted Eventually consistent
SingleStore Petabyte-scale Very high Distributed SQL + ACID Horizontal + Vertical Managed + Self-hosted Strong consistency

πŸ›οΈ Architecture Highlights

☁️ Serverless Architecture

  • Pinecone: Pioneer in serverless vector databases with automatic scaling and pay-per-use model
  • Benefits: Operational simplicity, cost-efficiency for variable workloads
  • Trade-offs: Performance variability, less control over infrastructure, potential cost escalation

πŸ”„ Distributed Systems

  • OpenSearch, Qdrant, Weaviate: Traditional distributed architectures
  • OpenSearch v3.0 Enhancements: Reader/Writer separation for isolated workload scaling, remote-backed S3 storage for resilience
  • Benefits: Predictable performance, fine-grained control
  • Trade-offs: Operational complexity, capacity planning requirements, significant tuning needed (especially OpenSearch)

🎯 Specialized Approaches

  • SingleStore: Only database offering strong consistency (ACID compliance)
  • Marqo: Vespa backend transition for improved performance and control
  • Algolia: Global CDN integration for worldwide low latency
  • OpenSearch v3.0: Derived Source feature reduces storage by ~33% by eliminating redundant vector data

πŸ”§ Indexing Mechanisms Comparison

Algorithm Selection: HNSW dominates for general use, but specialized implementations and combinations provide unique advantages.

Indexing Overview

Efficient indexing algorithms are fundamental to fast similarity search. The choice significantly impacts performance characteristics, with optimal strategies depending on dataset size, dimensionality, query patterns, and available computational resources.

Indexing Algorithm Support Matrix

Database HNSW IVF PQ LSH DiskANN Auto Selection Custom Algorithms
Pinecone βœ… ❌ ❌ ❌ βœ… βœ… (Adaptive by slab size) Proprietary optimizations
OpenSearch βœ… βœ… βœ…* ❌ ❌ ❌ Multiple engines (Faiss, Lucene, NMSLIB deprecated**)
Algolia ❓ ❓ ❓ ❓ ❌ βœ… NeuralHashingβ„’ (proprietary)
Marqo βœ… ❌ ❌ ❌ ❌ ❌ Vespa-optimized HNSW
TypeSense βœ… ❌ ❌ ❌ ❌ ❌ Standard HNSW
Qdrant βœ… ❌ βœ… ❌ ❌ ❌ Filterable HNSW
Weaviate βœ… ❌ βœ… ❌ ❌ ❌ Custom HNSW with CRUD
SingleStore βœ… βœ… βœ… ❌ ❌ βœ… (AUTO) Faiss-based implementations

🎯 Indexing Innovations

πŸ€– Automated Algorithm Selection

  • Pinecone: Adaptive indexing based on data slab size with proprietary optimizations
  • SingleStore: AUTO index type for optimal algorithm selection
  • Algolia: Proprietary NeuralHashingβ„’ for compression and speed

πŸ” Specialized HNSW Implementations

  • Qdrant: Filterable HNSW enabling efficient metadata filtering during graph traversal
  • Weaviate: HNSW with full CRUD operations support
  • Marqo: Vespa-optimized HNSW for high-performance scenarios
  • OpenSearch: Multiple engine support but requires manual configuration and tuning

πŸ“Š Multi-Algorithm Support

  • OpenSearch: Most comprehensive with Faiss, Lucene engines (requires Training API for IVF)
  • SingleStore: Strong IVF and PQ support with SQL integration

πŸ” Querying Capabilities Comparison

Hybrid Search Evolution: Pure vector search limitations drive adoption of combined semantic and lexical approaches for comprehensive relevance.

Querying Overview

Advanced querying capabilities determine real-world applicability. The trend toward hybrid search reflects the need to combine semantic understanding with exact keyword matching for optimal user experience.

Querying Capabilities Matrix

Database k-NN Search Range Search Distance Metrics Metadata Filtering Filtering Strategy Hybrid Search
Pinecone βœ… βœ… Cosine, Euclidean, Dot Product βœ… Advanced Disk-based, efficient βœ… Dense + Sparse
OpenSearch βœ… (Approximate & Exact*) βœ… Cosine, Euclidean, L1, Hamming βœ… Extensive Pre-filtering (exact), Post-filtering (ANN) βœ… BM25 + Vector (Neural Sparse Search**)
Algolia βœ… βœ… Multiple (proprietary) βœ… Rich faceting Integrated filtering βœ… NeuralSearchβ„’
Marqo βœ… βœ… Euclidean, Angular, Dot, Hamming βœ… Query DSL Pre-filtering βœ… Multimodal
TypeSense βœ… βœ… Cosine (primary) βœ… Standard filtering βœ… Rank Fusion
Qdrant βœ… βœ… Cosine, Euclidean, Dot Product βœ… JSON payload In-flight filtering βœ… (External)
Weaviate βœ… βœ… Cosine, Euclidean, Dot, Hamming βœ… Property-based Standard filtering βœ… BM25 + Vector
SingleStore βœ… βœ… Euclidean, Dot Product βœ… SQL predicates SQL-integrated βœ… Re-ranking

🎯 Querying Excellence

πŸ”§ Advanced Filtering Strategies

  • Qdrant: In-flight filtering during HNSW traversal (most efficient)
  • SingleStore: SQL-integrated filtering with complex predicates
  • OpenSearch: Different strategies for exact (pre-filtering) vs approximate (post-filtering) search
  • Pinecone: Disk-based metadata filtering for scalability

πŸ”„ Hybrid Search Leaders

  • Algolia: Native NeuralSearchβ„’ combining keyword and vector
  • OpenSearch: Mature BM25 + vector score fusion with Neural Sparse Search option
  • Pinecone: Dense + sparse vector combination with tunable weighting

🎨 Specialized Capabilities

  • Marqo: Multimodal search (text, image, cross-modal)
  • TypeSense: Rank Fusion with typo-tolerant lexical search
  • Weaviate: GraphQL queries with complex data traversal
  • OpenSearch: Score Script and Painless Extensions for custom scoring logic

πŸ› οΈ Data Management and Features

Production Readiness: Beyond core vector operations, enterprise features like security, multi-tenancy, and integrations determine production viability.

Data Management Overview

Comprehensive data management capabilities are essential for production deployments, encompassing everything from vectorization options to security and multi-tenancy support.

Feature Comparison Matrix

Database Vectorization Options CRUD Operations APIs & SDKs ML Integrations Multi-tenancy Security Data Types
Pinecone External only βœ… Full βœ… Excellent βœ… LangChain, LlamaIndex βœ… Namespaces βœ… Enterprise-grade βœ… Rich metadata
OpenSearch External only (requires index.knn: true) βœ… Full βœ… Comprehensive βœ… LangChain, LlamaIndex βœ… Index-based βœ… Full enterprise (AWS IAM, fine-grained access) βœ… JSON, all types
Algolia Built-in NeuralSearchβ„’ βœ… Full βœ… Excellent βœ… AI-driven features (Synonyms, Re-Ranking) βœ… Secure data isolation per application βœ… Good βœ… Rich faceted
Marqo βœ… Built-in inference, Marqtune for fine-tuning βœ… Full βœ… Good βœ… Custom models ⚠️ Basic βœ… Standard βœ… Multimodal
TypeSense βœ… Built-in + External βœ… Full βœ… Good βœ… OpenAI, Google PaLM ⚠️ Collection-based βœ… Standard βœ… Rich metadata
Qdrant External only βœ… Full with real-time βœ… Excellent βœ… LangChain, custom βœ… Payload-based βœ… Enterprise-ready βœ… JSON, geo, nested
Weaviate βœ… Modular vectorizers βœ… Full CRUD βœ… GraphQL + REST βœ… Extensive modules ⚠️ Schema-based βœ… Good βœ… Rich schema
SingleStore External only βœ… SQL CRUD βœ… SQL + drivers βœ… Standard SQL tools βœ… Database-level βœ… Enterprise RDBMS βœ… Full SQL types

πŸ† Feature Excellence

πŸ”„ Built-in Vectorization Leaders

  • Weaviate: Most flexible modular system (OpenAI, Cohere, Hugging Face)
  • TypeSense: Multi-service integration (OpenAI, Google PaLM, GCP Vertex AI)
  • Marqo: Proprietary inference engine with multimodal capabilities and Marqtune for domain-specific fine-tuning
  • OpenSearch: Requires external vectorization but integrates well with ML pipelines

πŸ”’ Enterprise Security Champions

  • SingleStore: Full RDBMS security suite (RBAC, auditing, encryption)
  • OpenSearch: Comprehensive security with AWS integration (SOC, HIPAA, PCI DSS compliance)
  • Pinecone: Enterprise-grade managed security

πŸ‘₯ Multi-tenancy Excellence

  • Pinecone: Namespaces scaling to millions with minimal overhead
  • Qdrant: Payload-based isolation with high performance
  • SingleStore: Database-level isolation with full SQL capabilities
  • OpenSearch: Index-based isolation with fine-grained access control

πŸ’° Cost Models and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

TCO Reality: The "cheapest" subscription option is rarely the most cost-effective when considering operational complexity, scaling characteristics, and engineering effort.

Cost Overview

Cost Scale Legend: πŸ’° = $0-100/month | πŸ’°πŸ’° = $100-1000/month | πŸ’°πŸ’°πŸ’° = $1000-5000/month | πŸ’°πŸ’°πŸ’°πŸ’° = $5000+/month

Understanding financial implications requires analyzing not just subscription costs, but infrastructure, operational overhead, hidden fees, and long-term scaling economics.

Cost Model Comparison Matrix

Database Pricing Model Starting Cost Infrastructure Costs Operational Costs Cost Escalation Risk TCO Rating
Pinecone Usage-based (Serverless/Pod) Free tier β†’ $70+/month βœ… Bundled 🟒 Low (managed) πŸ”΄ Very high at scale (>10M reads/month) πŸ’°πŸ’°πŸ’°
OpenSearch Open-source / AWS managed Free (OSS) / $17.28+/month (AWS)* πŸ’Έ Direct hosting or AWS pricing πŸ”΄ Very high (complex tuning, expertise required) ⚠️ Support, expertise, scaling complexity πŸ’°πŸ’°πŸ’°**
Algolia Usage-based Free tier β†’ $500+/month βœ… Bundled 🟒 Low (managed) πŸ”΄ Very high scaling (>2M searches/month) πŸ’°πŸ’°πŸ’°πŸ’°
Marqo Hybrid Free (OSS) / Cloud pricing πŸ”„ Mixed 🟑 Medium 🟒 Moderate πŸ’°πŸ’°
TypeSense Hybrid Free (OSS) / $20+/month πŸ”„ Mixed 🟑 Medium 🟒 Low πŸ’°
Qdrant Hybrid Free tier β†’ $25+/month πŸ”„ Mixed 🟑 Medium 🟒 Moderate πŸ’°πŸ’°
Weaviate Hybrid Free (OSS) / $25+/month πŸ”„ Mixed 🟑 Medium ⚠️ Scaling complexity πŸ’°πŸ’°
SingleStore Resource-based Enterprise pricing πŸ”„ Mixed 🟑 Medium (SQL expertise) 🟒 Consolidation savings πŸ’°πŸ’°πŸ’°

πŸ’‘ Cost Strategy Recommendations

πŸš€ Best for Startups (< 1M vectors)

  • TypeSense: Most cost-effective overall
  • Qdrant Free Tier: Excellent performance at no cost
  • OpenSearch Self-hosted: If expertise available (steep learning curve)

🏒 Best for Scale (100M+ vectors)

  • Self-hosted Qdrant: Best performance per dollar
  • AWS OpenSearch with Reserved Instances: Up to 48% savings on 3-year commitment
  • Pod-based Pinecone: More predictable than serverless at scale

⚑ Best for Rapid Deployment

  • Pinecone: Fastest to production despite higher costs
  • AWS OpenSearch Serverless: OCU-based pricing, no management overhead
  • TypeSense Cloud: Best balance of speed and affordability
  • Qdrant Cloud: Good performance with reasonable pricing

πŸ“š Individual Database Deep Dives

Comprehensive Reviews: Each database has been thoroughly analyzed across architecture, performance, use cases, pricing, and real-world implementation considerations.

For detailed technical analysis, implementation guides, and specific use case recommendations, explore our comprehensive individual database reviews:

πŸ” Detailed Database Analyses

Database Review Link Key Strengths Best For Cost Considerations
🌲 Pinecone Complete Analysis β†’ Serverless architecture, managed scaling, strong ecosystem Production apps requiring minimal ops overhead ⚠️ Watch for cost escalation >10M reads/month
πŸ” OpenSearch Complete Analysis β†’ Open source, unified platform, AWS integration, v3.0 performance Enterprise with existing ElasticSearch/OpenSearch expertise High operational overhead, requires significant tuning
⚑ Algolia Complete Analysis β†’ Global CDN, hybrid search, developer experience Search-heavy applications with global users Very expensive at scale
🎯 Marqo Complete Analysis β†’ Multimodal capabilities, built-in ML inference, Marqtune fine-tuning AI applications requiring image/text search Moderate scaling costs, GPU-intensive workloads can escalate costs
πŸš€ TypeSense Complete Analysis β†’ Cost-effective, typo-tolerant search, easy setup Small to medium scale with budget constraints Best cost-performance ratio
🧊 Qdrant Complete Analysis β†’ High performance, Rust optimization, flexible filtering High-throughput applications requiring speed Excellent value at scale
🧠 Weaviate Complete Analysis β†’ Modular vectorization, GraphQL API, extensive ML integrations AI applications requiring flexible data schemas and ML workflows Schema-based multi-tenancy, scaling complexity
βš™οΈ SingleStore Complete Analysis β†’ SQL integration, strong consistency (ACID), petabyte-scale, fastest indexing Enterprise applications requiring SQL compatibility and transactional guarantees Enterprise pricing, consolidation potential for existing SQL workloads

Last updated: June 2025 | Based on comprehensive analysis of current pricing, performance benchmarks, and community feedback

About

No description, website, or topics provided.

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

No releases published

Packages

No packages published