Ecommerce search and merchandising · November 2026 Edition
Constructor vs Searchanise
Two of fourteen models named Constructor first on the direct prompt; zero named Searchanise. Constructor was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Searchanise by eleven and Constructor carries 42 labels and Searchanise 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share8%6%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate19%8%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#7A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.
Labels4212A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Constructor 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 Constructor · Algolia vs Searchanise · Luigi's Box vs Constructor
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.
ConstructorFirst choices, of fourteen modelsSearchanise
Direct201 against Constructor
Paraphrase103 against Constructor
Comparative50
Budget-constrained031 against Constructor
Scale-constrained10
Negative003 against Constructor · 1 against Searchanise
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.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Constructor and Searchanise 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 | | | |
Constructor Searchanise first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Constructor on the left and Searchanise on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Constructor and Searchanise stood in it.
Constructor first, Searchanise not the choice
2 of 14 modelsSearchanise was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Grok 4.20Constructor alternatives: Algolia, Athos Commerce, Bloomreach Discovery, Luigi's Box
Mistral SmallConstructor, Luigi's Box alternatives: Clerk.io, Coveo for Commerce, Hawksearch
Neither was the first choice, one was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Llama 4 MaverickLuigi's Box alternatives: Athos Commerce, Bloomreach Discovery, Clerk.io, Constructor
GLM 4.7 FlashXAthos Commerce alternatives: Algolia, Constructor, Luigi's Box
GPT-6 LunaAlgolia alternatives: Constructor, Klevu, Searchspring
Muse Glimmer 30BLuigi's Box alternatives: Bloomreach Discovery, Constructor, Hawksearch
Neither was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Klevu alternatives: BigCommerce, Bloomreach Discovery, Nosto, Searchspring
GPT-5.4 miniAlgolia alternatives: Adobe Commerce, Bloomreach Discovery, Salesforce B2B Commerce, Searchspring
Gemini 3.5 FlashHawksearch alternatives: Algolia, Bloomreach Discovery, Coveo for Commerce, Klevu
Perplexity SonarLuigi's Box alternatives: Coveo for Commerce, Hawksearch
DeepSeek V4 FlashLuigi's Box alternatives: Athos Commerce, Hawksearch, Klevu
Qwen 3.7 FlashLuigi's Box alternatives: Algolia, Bloomreach Discovery, Hawksearch
Kimi K2Klevu alternatives: Algolia, Athos Commerce, Bloomreach Discovery
MiniMax M2.5Luigi's Box alternatives: Athos Commerce, Clerk.io, 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
Searchanise leads by four points.
Searchanise5%#4 of 15Constructor2%#11 of 15Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Constructor leads at mid-market.
Constructor8%#4 of 14Searchanise6%#7 of 14Enterprise
Constructor leads by thirty points.
Constructor30%#1 of 10Searchanise0%#– of 10What the models said about Constructor
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Overkill and expensive ($100s–$1,000s/month); not suitable for limited budgets.” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · hard negative
“Bloomreach, Coveo, Constructor.io, Google Vertex AI Search for Commerce | SMBs & Mid-Market: ... Avoid them unless you have dedicated merchandising teams” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Constructor — strong product discovery, but ensure the team can handle the learning curve and workflow complexity.” GPT-5.4 mini · negative prompt · soft negative
“Best overall for most mid-market B2B: Constructor — Strongest in AI-driven search, personalization, and merchandising for complex B2B catalogs.” Grok 4.20 · direct prompt · first choice
“My first choice would be Constructor if your buyers see different catalogs, prices, or availability depending on their account.” GPT-6 Luna · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Luigi's Box and Constructor are top choices due to their B2B-specific features and strong performance.” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about Searchanise
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“Searchanise / other budget tools — lower cost, but verify relevance quality, typo tolerance, and merch controls” GPT-5.4 mini · negative prompt · soft negative
“Go with Searchanise if keeping monthly costs minimal and predictable is your top priority.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Searchanise is the budget pick that reviewers actually like: 4.8 on G2 across 102 reviews” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Searchanise is my budget-friendly paid pick” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · first choice
Also compared
Algolia vs ConstructorAlgolia vs SearchaniseLuigi's Box vs ConstructorLuigi's Box vs SearchaniseDoofinder vs ConstructorDoofinder vs SearchaniseConstructor vs HawksearchConstructor vs KlevuConstructor vs Bloomreach DiscoveryHawksearch vs SearchaniseKlevu vs SearchaniseSearchanise 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.