Video summary

Google Just Ruined Search, So I Tested Every Alternative.

Main summary

Key takeaways

Technology

Summary of the video (tech concepts, features, and evaluation)

The creator reacts to Google’s shift toward delivering more AI-generated answers (fewer traditional “blue links”), arguing that this will degrade search quality. They test several Google alternatives to determine whether these engines handle real, niche troubleshooting effectively—comparing result relevance, feature completeness, and whether AI answers can be avoided.

1) DuckDuckGo (DDG)

  • Positioning: Marketed as AI-free search and privacy-focused.
  • Key feature: Offers an optional AI assistant-like search product (duck.ai) resembling ChatGPT.
  • AI relevance nuance: Despite “AI-free” marketing, DDG still includes Google-like AI-assisted result boxes, but provides an option to turn them off.
  • Image filtering: Includes a setting to filter out AI-generated images (framed as useful compared to Google Images “AI slop”).

Results quality (findings):

  • Good early on for basic needs (e.g., Wikipedia-style answers, Steam sale timing).
  • Falls apart for specific problems later in the day: a 3D printer filament issue yielded almost no relevant troubleshooting results beyond one decent match.
  • Results were described as less relevant as queries became more niche.
  • The creator notes that Reddit threads often matter for obscure problems, and Google surfaces them more directly than DDG (without requiring the query to include “Reddit”).

Overall verdict: Works for simple searches, but underwhelming for high-accuracy niche troubleshooting; image search was also criticized as poor.

2) Startpage

  • Positioning: “World’s most private search engine,” based in the Netherlands (EU privacy laws).
  • Core experience: Feels closer to “old Google”—minimal clutter and no AI by default.

Results quality (findings):

  • Generally more relevant than DuckDuckGo.
  • Missing a key quality-of-life feature: no built-in way to filter results to a specific site (unlike Google’s “search within site” style or Reddit internal search).

Important technical analysis (why it looks like Google sometimes): The creator frames search engines as a pipeline:

  1. URL discovery
  2. Crawling/deploying crawlers to gather site data
  3. Indexing (building a searchable library)

They claim some engines borrow other indexes instead of using their own:

  • DuckDuckGo: reportedly uses Bing’s index, which they say explains weaker results.
  • Startpage: reportedly uses Google and/or Bing indexes, which they demonstrate by showing similar health-related result pages in a “canker sore” search.

Because the borrowed index quality has allegedly declined, Startpage inherits limitations—though it avoids Google’s ad clutter.

Overall verdict: Better results than DDG, but feature gaps and reliance on external indexing prevent it from fully replacing Google.

3) Brave Search

  • Positioning: Uses its own index (not Google/Bing’s).

Test methodology (structured evaluation):

  • Level 1: basic trivia (“how tall is a giraffe?”)
  • Level 2: practical how-to questions
  • Level 3: obscure technical issues (3D printer troubleshooting, Linux problems)

Results quality (findings):

  • Level 1 sometimes shows discussion-style threads, but relevance is inconsistent.
  • Level 3 often lacks the expected depth (e.g., missing Reddit/forum-style matches when needed).
  • Can feel cluttered, including sponsored content and prompts to try other engines.
  • The creator reports index quality issues, such as failing to produce forum results for a specific 3D printing brand/problem (Bambu Labs).

Paid tier:

  • Brave Search Premium (subscription) frames ad removal as support for private searching; ad removal is a bonus.

Notable built-in ranking/filter tools (key differentiators):

  • Rerank: block/weight domains—e.g., discard domains you don’t want, or boost Wikipedia.
  • Brave Goggles: advanced filter presets (“loadouts”) that reshape ranking using criteria (e.g., filter out Pinterest, remove copycats, filter news).
  • Limitation: couldn’t apply Goggles to image search.

Overall verdict: Powerful filtering features, but frequently hampered by weak base index/relevance.

4) Kagi (final alternative with strongest performance)

  • Positioning: Paid search (account required).
    • Uses its own index and multiple external indexes via a meta search approach (including engines like Google, Bing, Yandex, Mojeek).
  • AI behavior: No AI answers by default; AI output requires a specific “quick answers” button.

Interface features:

  • Shows how many searches and time taken (similar to Google’s older behavior).
  • Offers advanced filters and a lens system similar to Goggles.
  • The creator especially likes the forum lens, which groups multiple links from each forum.

Results quality (findings):

  • Passes all three test “levels” better than prior engines.
  • For local/restaurant queries, uses Mapbox (not Google Maps or Apple Maps).
    • Reviews appear pulled from Google, but ratings are missing (ratings aren’t shown).
  • Image search remains weak compared to Google’s “magic sauce,” requiring extra scrolling to find exact images.

Pricing/value assessment:

  • Feels strong “out of the box,” and the creator understands why some would pay (~$5/month),
  • but questions whether it’s worth it if you still need Google occasionally.

Overall verdict: Closest to a true Google alternative in relevance and filtering, but not complete—especially for image search.

Conclusion (overall comparisons)

  • No full replacement was found, but alternatives can still do the job with decent success.
  • Tradeoffs:
    • Startpage: free, old-school Google feel, but weaker features and relies on others’ indexing.
    • Brave: great built-in filtering/ranking controls, free, but base index relevance is inconsistent.
    • Kagi: best combination of relevance + filters, but paid and behind Google for image search.
  • The creator’s personal recommendation: Brave Search as the best overall option for most users, despite shortcomings.

Sponsors / not-main tech concept mentioned

  • An Anker Prime 160W multi-port charger is promoted mid-video; not directly related to the search engine evaluation.

Main speakers / sources (end)

  • Main speaker: The video creator/tester (first-person narrative; no named person given in subtitles).
  • Primary sources referenced/tested: DuckDuckGo, Startpage, Brave Search, Kagi, plus indexing claims attributed to Bing/Google and examples like Reddit, Wikipedia, and Bambu Labs.

Original video