Compare Algolia and Apache Lucene 
- Users report that Apache Lucene excels in Indexing with a score of 9.1, making it a robust choice for handling large datasets efficiently, while Algolia, although strong, scores slightly lower in this area.
- Reviewers mention that Algolia shines in Ease of Admin with a score of 9.0, indicating a more user-friendly administrative experience compared to Apache Lucene's score of 6.7, which can be challenging for some users.
- G2 users highlight Algolia's superior Quality of Support with a score of 8.9, contrasting with Apache Lucene's score of 7.8, suggesting that users may find more responsive and helpful support with Algolia.
- Users on G2 report that Algolia offers better Search Queries capabilities, particularly in Typo Tolerance and Faceted Search, both scoring 9.2, which enhances user experience in finding products, while Apache Lucene's scores in these areas are lower.
- Reviewers say that Algolia's Product Recommendations feature, scoring 8.5, is more effective than Apache Lucene's offerings, which can lead to better user engagement and conversion rates.
- Users report that while both products have strong Analytics capabilities, Algolia's Reports & Analytics score of 8.4 is more favorable than Apache Lucene's 8.2, indicating a more comprehensive analytics suite for tracking performance.
- Unlimited Applications Per User
- Integration with SFCC, Shopify, Magento
- Integration with Segment, Google Tag Manager
The search results are accurate and are fast. The analytics for what queries are not getting results and what documents get the most hits is nice.
It is (apart from the speed) quite unsophisticated. The entire model is geared to get you to pay more, more, more; which is a bit sad. Bug reports are countered with "we can only fix that on an enterprise server" (which is $1500+ per month).
Easy Implementation and writing/generating Lucene queries are very easy. The implementation is very fast and effective wrappers can be built around it.
I don't like Lucene because of its incomplete implementations, especially for recent state-of-the-art retrieval approaches. When I compare it with the Lemur toolkit, it misses several components.
The search results are accurate and are fast. The analytics for what queries are not getting results and what documents get the most hits is nice.
Easy Implementation and writing/generating Lucene queries are very easy. The implementation is very fast and effective wrappers can be built around it.
It is (apart from the speed) quite unsophisticated. The entire model is geared to get you to pay more, more, more; which is a bit sad. Bug reports are countered with "we can only fix that on an enterprise server" (which is $1500+ per month).
I don't like Lucene because of its incomplete implementations, especially for recent state-of-the-art retrieval approaches. When I compare it with the Lemur toolkit, it misses several components.
