Ecommerce search and merchandising · November 2026 Edition
Algolia vs Doofinder
Two of fourteen models named Algolia first on the direct prompt; zero named Doofinder. Algolia was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Doofinder by thirteen and Algolia carries 57 labels and Doofinder 31, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Paris, France, founded 2012. Named in two categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share24%20%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate21%16%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#3A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.
Labels5731A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Algolia reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Luigi's Box was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. Algolia vs Luigi's Box · Algolia vs Constructor · Algolia vs Hawksearch
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the ecommerce search and merchandising page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
AlgoliaFirst choices, of fourteen modelsDoofinder
Direct201 against Doofinder
Paraphrase701 against Doofinder
Comparative50
Budget-constrained2104 against Algolia
Scale-constrained10
Negative008 against Algolia · 3 against Doofinder
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Algolia and Doofinder were named in the same answer eighty-four times, of the 189 answers naming Algolia and the 98 naming Doofinder. In those answers Doofinder took the first choice thirty-one times and Algolia eleven.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Algolia and Doofinder stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | | | |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | | |
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | | ||
| Grok 4.20 | | | | | | |
| Mistral Small | | | | | ||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | | | |
| Kimi K2 | | | | | | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | | ||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | | |
Algolia Doofinder first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Algolia on the left and Doofinder on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Algolia and Doofinder stood in it.
Algolia first, Doofinder not the choice
2 of 14 modelsDoofinder was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniAlgolia alternatives: Adobe Commerce, Bloomreach Discovery, Salesforce B2B Commerce, Searchspring
GPT-6 LunaAlgolia alternatives: Constructor, Klevu, Searchspring
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Gemini 3.5 FlashHawksearch alternatives: Algolia, Bloomreach Discovery, Coveo for Commerce, Klevu
Grok 4.20Constructor alternatives: Algolia, Athos Commerce, Bloomreach Discovery, Luigi's Box
Qwen 3.7 FlashLuigi's Box alternatives: Algolia, Bloomreach Discovery, Hawksearch
Kimi K2Klevu alternatives: Algolia, Athos Commerce, Bloomreach Discovery
GLM 4.7 FlashXAthos Commerce alternatives: Algolia, Constructor, Luigi's Box
Neither was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Klevu alternatives: BigCommerce, Bloomreach Discovery, Nosto, Searchspring
Perplexity SonarLuigi's Box alternatives: Coveo for Commerce, Hawksearch
Mistral SmallConstructor, Luigi's Box alternatives: Clerk.io, Coveo for Commerce, Hawksearch
DeepSeek V4 FlashLuigi's Box alternatives: Athos Commerce, Hawksearch, Klevu
Llama 4 MaverickLuigi's Box alternatives: Athos Commerce, Bloomreach Discovery, Clerk.io, Constructor
MiniMax M2.5Luigi's Box alternatives: Athos Commerce, Clerk.io, Hawksearch
Muse Glimmer 30BLuigi's Box alternatives: Bloomreach Discovery, Constructor, Hawksearch
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Doofinder leads by twenty-five points.
Doofinder40%#1 of 15Algolia15%#2 of 15Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Algolia leads at mid-market.
Algolia24%#1 of 14Doofinder20%#3 of 14Enterprise
What the models said about Algolia
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Algolia has a relatively high negative sentiment share (19% of labels negative) and is criticized for its consumption-based pricing model” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“Algolia — High risk on pricing, support ... If you're a small-to-mid-size retailer with variable traffic, this is a genuine risk.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Charging is per keystroke/request, which can balloon costs as traffic grows. It's developer-heavy — not for non-technical teams.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“Algolia is recognized as the best overall ecommerce search engine for fast, AI-driven search with deep developer flexibility and strong analytics.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
“Request demos from 3-4 vendors that match your profile (likely Algolia, Constructor, Luigi's Box, and one other)” Kimi K2 · scale prompt · first choice
“Choose Algolia if you have strong dev resources and want maximum flexibility with fast implementation” Kimi K2 · comparative prompt · first choice
What the models said about Doofinder
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Query/bill shock ... weak merchandising/personalization/recommendations ... support that drops off after onboarding” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · hard negative
“reported limitations include shallow personalization and fewer advanced discovery capabilities” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“noted for having a relatively high negative sentiment (12%) and is considered a new entrant” Mistral Small · negative prompt · soft negative
“Go with Doofinder if you want an easy, full-featured search and merchandising tool with a minimal learning curve and affordable starting plans.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Start with Doofinder if you can afford roughly $50–$80/month, as it provides the most complete "search + merchandising" toolset.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“The best ecommerce search and merchandising platform for a company with a limited budget is Doofinder.” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice
Also compared
Algolia vs Luigi's BoxAlgolia vs ConstructorAlgolia vs HawksearchAlgolia vs KlevuAlgolia vs SearchaniseAlgolia vs Bloomreach DiscoveryLuigi's Box vs DoofinderDoofinder vs ConstructorDoofinder vs HawksearchDoofinder vs KlevuDoofinder vs SearchaniseDoofinder vs Bloomreach DiscoveryAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full ecommerce search standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.