Tavily vs Parallel: web search API comparison
Tavily and Parallel measured on the same three jobs: factual lookup, hard retrieval for coding agents, and multi-hop company search. Rankings do not transfer. Winner per task is in the table below.
Tavily or Parallel — winner per task
Best measured endpoint per vendor on each task. Modes stay separate rows in the tables below.
| Task | Tavily | Parallel | Measured winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factual lookup (accuracy) | 93.8% | 96.9% | Parallel |
| Hard retrieval (task completion, search+fetch) | 60.0% | 79.3% | Parallel |
| Multi-hop (F1, search-only) | 41.1% | 41.4% | Parallel |
Tavily and Parallel on company-news lookup
One query, one verifiable fact. 129 questions, max 10 results. Full factual lookup board →
| Axis | Tavily | Parallel | Measured winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (extracted-answer) | 93.8% | 96.9% | Parallel |
| Answer recall (AR@5) | 94.6% | 96.9% | Parallel |
| Speed (mean latency) | 4.40s | 1.41s | Parallel |
| Cost per 1,000 queries (list price) | $17.45 | $6.21 | Parallel |
| Rank | Vendor | Endpoint & configuration | Accuracy | AR@1 | AR@5 | Latency | Snippet tokens | Total $ | Official docs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tavilyweb search | POST /searchsearch_depth=advanced · chunks_per_source=3 | 93.8% | 79.8% | 94.6% | 4.40s | 3,041 | $2.25 | Official docs |
| 2 | Parallelweb search | POST /v1/searchmode=advanced | 96.9% | 62.0% | 96.9% | 3.28s | 2,127 | $0.80 | Official docs |
| 3 | Parallelweb search | POST /v1/searchmode=basic | 95.3% | 65.1% | 91.5% | 1.41s | 2,409 | $0.82 | Official docs |
Tavily and Parallel on coding-agent docs
Grounded task completion on 100 documentation tickets. A pass needs a # source: URL from that run. Full coding-agent board →
Parallel leads at 79.3%. Median task time: Tavily 32s vs Parallel 37s.
| Rank | Vendor | Endpoint & configuration | Task completion | Median task time | Avg search time | Median task tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tavily advanced | POST /search search_depth=advancedPOST /extract extract_depth=advanced | 60.0 ± 2.0 | 46s | 3.41s | 26,269 |
| 2 | Tavily basic | POST /search search_depth=basicPOST /extract extract_depth=basic | 59.0 ± 1.7 | 32s | 1.50s | 27,405 |
| 3 | Parallel advanced | POST /v1/search mode=advancedPOST /v1/extract | 79.3 ± 2.1 | 39s | 3.08s | 29,925 |
| 4 | Parallel basic | POST /v1/search mode=basicPOST /v1/extract | 73.7 ± 2.3 | 37s | 1.70s | 41,475 |
| Rank | Vendor | Endpoint & configuration | Task completion | Median task time | Avg search time | Median task tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tavily fast | POST /search search_depth=fast | 47.3 ± 2.5 | 22s | 282ms | 23,922 |
| 2 | Parallel fast | POST /v1/search mode=fast | 63.0 ± 3.6 | 22s | 954ms | 14,747 |
| 3 | Parallel turbo | POST /v1/search mode=turbo | 55.3 ± 1.5 | 21s | 454ms | 17,820 |
Tavily and Parallel on multi-turn company search
45 questions, each with three or four constraints. Scored on precision, recall, F1, and exact-set. Full multi-turn board →
Parallel leads F1 at 41.4%. Median agent time: Tavily 92.17s vs Parallel 69.15s. Cost / agent run: Tavily $0.910 vs Parallel $0.614.
| Provider | Endpoint & configuration | F1 | Precision | Recall | Exact set | Median time | Mean turns | Cost / agent run | Measured on |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tavily | POST /search search_depth=advancedtavily-advanced | 41.1 ± 2.3 | 83.7 ± 4.2 | 29.8 ± 1.7 | 2.2 ± 0.0 | 92.2 s | 7.4 | $0.910 | 45 questions135 agent runs |
| Parallel | POST /v1/search mode=basicparallel-basic | 41.4 ± 3.0 | 84.7 ± 6.1 | 29.9 ± 2.6 | 2.2 ± 0.0 | 69.1 s | 7.3 | $1.008 | 45 questions135 agent runs |
| Parallel | POST /v1/search mode=advancedparallel-advanced | 40.8 ± 1.1 | 86.7 ± 2.0 | 29.2 ± 1.3 | 2.2 ± 0.0 | 87.4 s | 7.3 | $0.614 | 45 questions135 agent runs |
F1, precision, recall, and exact-set accuracy are percentages reported as mean ± sample SD across three independent runs; each run aggregates all 45 questions. SD is measured in percentage points. Median time is the median end-to-end time across all runs for each vendor.
| Provider | Endpoint & configuration | F1 | Precision | Recall | Exact set | Median time | Mean turns | Cost / agent run | Measured on |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tavily | POST /search search_depth=advancedtavily-advanced | 41.0 ± 1.3 | 89.4 ± 6.0 | 29.1 ± 0.7 | 2.2 ± 0.0 | 92.6 s | 7.3 | $0.813 | 45 questions135 agent runs |
| Parallel | POST /v1/search mode=advancedparallel-advanced | 42.4 ± 1.1 | 89.2 ± 2.1 | 30.0 ± 1.3 | 2.2 ± 0.0 | 83.9 s | 7.4 | $0.599 | 45 questions135 agent runs |
| Parallel | POST /v1/search mode=basicparallel-basic | 42.0 ± 4.0 | 87.0 ± 7.6 | 30.2 ± 3.2 | 3.0 ± 1.3 | 71.7 s | 7.2 | $0.949 | 45 questions135 agent runs |
F1, precision, recall, and exact-set accuracy are percentages reported as mean ± sample SD across three independent runs; each run aggregates all 45 questions. SD is measured in percentage points. Median time is the median end-to-end time across all runs for each vendor.
Tavily vs Parallel — common questions
Tavily vs Parallel: which web search API is better?
Factual lookup: Parallel leads accuracy (Tavily 93.8% vs Parallel 96.9%). Hard retrieval: Parallel leads task completion (Tavily 60.0% vs Parallel 79.3%). Multi-hop: Parallel leads F1 (Tavily 41.1% vs Parallel 41.4%). Rankings do not transfer across tasks.
Is Tavily or Parallel cheaper?
On factual lookup list price: Tavily $17.45 per 1,000 queries vs Parallel $6.21 — Parallel is cheaper. Coding token efficiency is median task tokens; multi-hop cheapest is cost per agent run. Free tiers and volume discounts excluded.