Parallel Alternatives, 2026
Exa fast leads 10 tested Parallel alternatives at 99.3% accuracy on 300 company-news questions, independently benchmarked Sep 26, 2026.
What this page compares. This page ranks measured results from 3 boards: company-news factual lookup (web search APIs), coding-agent documentation tickets (search and page fetch) and multi-turn company search (search only). Parallel was measured and is left out of its own alternatives ranking.
How to read the result. The table ranks every complete run by its score on the same questions. Latency and cost are shown beside it and not blended into the score.
Company-news factual lookup, web search APIs, ranked by accuracy
Every row ran the same 300 questions. Provider names link to the official docs for the configuration measured.
| Rank | Provider | Accuracy | Answer recall @5 | Median search time | $ / 1k queries | $ / 1k correct | Result tokens | Accuracy / 1k tokens | List price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Exa fasttype=fast | 99.3% | 99.3% | 569 ms | $7.00 | $7.05 | 1,987 | 50.0 | $7.00 / 1k queries |
| 2 | Exa instanttype=instant | 97.7% | 97.3% | 386 ms | $7.00 | $7.17 | 2,128 | 45.9 | $7.00 / 1k queries |
| 3 | Perplexity lowsearch_context_size=low | 97.3% | 98.3% | 1.6 s | $5.00 | $5.14 | 476 | 205 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 4 | Linkup fastdepth=fast · outputType=searchResults | 96.7% | 94.7% | 1.2 s | $5.00 | $5.17 | 3,022 | 32.0 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 5 | SERPlimit=10 | 96.0% | 95.0% | 578 ms | $3.00 | $3.13 | 497 | 193 | $3.00 / 1k queries |
| 6 | Firecrawlfirecrawl-search | 95.3% | 96.7% | 471 ms | $5.00 | $5.24 | 678 | 141 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 7 | Brave Search llm-contextcount=10 | 94.0% | 94.7% | 590 ms | $5.00 | $5.32 | 2,064 | 45.6 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 8 | Brave Search webcount=10 · result_filter=web | 93.3% | 91.7% | 613 ms | $5.00 | $5.36 | 817 | 114 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 9 | Nimble standardsearch_depth=standard · full_content=false · focus=general | 93.0% | 94.3% | 822 ms | $5.00 | $5.38 | 2,730 | 34.1 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 10 | Tavily advancedsearch_depth=advanced | 93.0% | 92.7% | 4.2 s | $16.00 | $17.20 | 2,210 | 42.1 | $16.00 / 1k queries |
| 11 | Linkup standarddepth=standard · outputType=searchResults | 92.0% | 90.3% | 2.1 s | $5.00 | $5.43 | 2,983 | 30.8 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 12 | TinyFishfree · 30 req/min cap | 92.0% | 90.7% | 2.3 s | $0 | $0 | 441 | 208 | $0 / 1k queries |
| 13 | You highlights coreextraction_mode=highlights · knowledge=core | 92.0% | 89.7% | 815 ms | $5.00 | $5.43 | 2,862 | 32.1 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 14 | You highlightsextraction_mode=highlights | 90.7% | 89.7% | 614 ms | $5.00 | $5.51 | 2,837 | 32.0 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 15 | Tavily basicsearch_depth=basic | 87.7% | 87.7% | 1.7 s | $8.00 | $9.13 | 1,639 | 53.5 | $8.00 / 1k queries |
| 16 | Nimble litesearch_depth=lite · full_content=false · focus=general | 75.3% | 75.3% | 1.4 s | $1.10 | $1.46 | 413 | 183 | $1.10 / 1k queries |
Coding-agent documentation tickets, search and page fetch, ranked by task completion
| Rank | Provider | Task completion | Mean search time | Median task time | Median cost / task | Median task tokens | Completion / 1k tokens | List price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Exa deeptype=deep | 83.0% | 4.0 s | 36.8 s | $0.13 | 23,660 | 3.51 | $12.00 / 1k queries |
| 2 | Exa autotype=auto | 81.7% | 1.2 s | 22.7 s | $0.11 | 27,433 | 2.98 | $7.00 / 1k queries |
| 3 | TinyFishtinyfish-search | 79.0% | 1.3 s | 24.3 s | $0.050 | 12,844 | 6.15 | $0 / 1k queries |
| 4 | Perplexitysearch_context_size=high | 77.7% | 991 ms | 21.5 s | $0.083 | 20,062 | 3.87 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 5 | Firecrawlfirecrawl-search | 76.0% | 2.8 s | 34.4 s | $0.082 | 17,379 | 4.37 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 6 | Nimblesearch_depth=lite · full_content=false · focus=general | 60.3% | 1.9 s | 40.0 s | — | 16,828 | 3.59 | $1.10 / 1k queries |
| 7 | Tavily advancedsearch_depth=advanced | 60.0% | 3.4 s | 46.4 s | $0.15 | 26,269 | 2.28 | $16.00 / 1k queries |
| 8 | Tavily basicsearch_depth=basic | 59.0% | 1.5 s | 32.4 s | $0.11 | 27,405 | 2.15 | $8.00 / 1k queries |
| 9 | Youextraction_mode=highlights | 55.0% | 638 ms | 27.3 s | $0.12 | 42,806 | 1.28 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 10 | Youextraction_mode=highlights · knowledge=core | 54.0% | 678 ms | 27.8 s | $0.12 | 37,453 | 1.44 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 11 | Linkup standarddepth=standard | 48.3% | 2.0 s | 48.2 s | $0.15 | 57,791 | 0.84 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 12 | Nimblesearch_depth=standard · full_content=false · focus=general | 45.0% | 905 ms | 44.2 s | — | 28,586 | 1.57 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
Multi-turn company search, search only, ranked by F1
| Rank | Provider | F1 | Precision | Recall | Median task time | Median cost / task | Median task tokens | List price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Exa deepexa-deep | 45.4% | 83.2% | 33.7% | 89.5 s | $0.72 | 153,061 | $12.00 / 1k queries |
| 2 | Exa instantexa-instant | 43.3% | 82.6% | 32.2% | 49.8 s | $0.65 | 152,622 | $7.00 / 1k queries |
| 3 | Linkup fastlinkup-fast | 41.1% | 82.8% | 30.3% | 64.2 s | $0.92 | 259,642 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 4 | Tavily advancedtavily-advanced | 41.1% | 83.7% | 29.8% | 92.2 s | $1.03 | 237,706 | $16.00 / 1k queries |
| 5 | Linkup standardlinkup-standard | 40.6% | 84.0% | 29.7% | 72.3 s | $0.94 | 249,382 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 6 | Youextraction_mode=highlights | 38.6% | 79.3% | 28.3% | 48.2 s | $0.97 | 264,016 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 7 | Youextraction_mode=highlights · knowledge=core | 38.1% | 80.9% | 27.4% | 47.6 s | $0.90 | 244,245 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 8 | Perplexitysearch_context_size=low | 37.8% | 79.3% | 26.8% | 48.9 s | $0.33 | 66,928 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 9 | Tavily basictavily-basic | 36.5% | 82.5% | 25.7% | 63.0 s | $0.61 | 142,692 | $8.00 / 1k queries |
| 10 | Nimblesearch_depth=standard · full_content=false · focus=general | 30.7% | 70.3% | 21.3% | 53.0 s | $0.47 | 109,000 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 11 | Firecrawlfirecrawl | 30.4% | 77.3% | 20.7% | 75.0 s | $0.28 | 50,596 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 12 | Brave Searchbrave | 28.0% | 66.9% | 19.3% | 43.5 s | $0.27 | 49,005 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 13 | TinyFishtinyfish | 26.6% | 64.7% | 17.9% | 64.2 s | $0.21 | 51,091 | $0 / 1k queries |
| 14 | Nimblesearch_depth=lite · full_content=false · focus=general | 24.1% | 65.2% | 16.1% | 67.2 s | $0.22 | 50,682 | $1.10 / 1k queries |
| 15 | Seltzseltz-companies | 14.5% | 40.0% | 9.4% | 55.2 s | $1.75 | 500,633 | $5.00 / 1k queries |
| 16 | SERP (RapidAPI)serp | 0.4% | 0.7% | 0.3% | 31.4 s | $0.10 | 10,890 | $3.00 / 1k queries |
How the ranking was measured
- Every API received the same natural-language question about a recent company event, one search per question, up to 10 results.
- Each answer is a single verifiable value pinned to an official wire or newsroom URL, fixed before any vendor ran.
- Accuracy is whether the returned results let the same answering model extract the correct value.
- Latency is the search request time. Cost is the recorded list price for the calls made, per 1,000 queries and per 1,000 correct answers.
- The runner and published data are open in openbenchmarks-labs/factual-lookup-company-news-search ↗ and openbenchmarks/OB-News-Websearch ↗. The full methodology is on the Web Search Benchmark →
Questions answered by this comparison
Which provider leads parallel Alternatives?
Exa fast leads this table at 99.3% accuracy, on 300 company-news questions.
How was this measured?
Every API received the same natural-language question about a recent company event, one search per question, up to 10 results. Each answer is a single verifiable value pinned to an official wire or newsroom URL, fixed before any vendor ran. Accuracy is whether the returned results let the same answering model extract the correct value. Latency is the search request time. Cost is the recorded list price for the calls made, per 1,000 queries and per 1,000 correct answers.
How should speed and cost be read beside the score?
Exa fast recorded 569 ms median search time and $7.00 per 1,000 queries. The most accurate configuration is rarely the fastest or the cheapest, so each is reported in its own column.
Why is Parallel not in the ranking?
Parallel was measured, and its configurations are left out so they cannot rank as their own alternative. Its results are on the full benchmark page.
What does this page not test?
This page ranks measured results from 3 boards: company-news factual lookup (web search APIs), coding-agent documentation tickets (search and page fetch) and multi-turn company search (search only). Parallel was measured and is left out of its own alternatives ranking.