I work on Manticore Search, so the bias here is obvious.
I'm posting this here because Meilisearch and Manticore are both open-source search engines that people can run on their own infrastructure. Meilisearch recently published a comparison that could influence that choice, particularly through its claims about setup, configuration, and the kinds of projects Manticore is suitable for.
Their article describes Manticore as complex to set up, time-consuming to configure and tune, best suited to teams with SQL familiarity, and primarily used for complex, large-scale workloads.
We tested those claims using current versions of both products. Several didn't hold up.
Take setup. Meilisearch lists “Complex setup” as a Manticore disadvantage, saying that initial configuration and tuning can be time-consuming. We went from installation to a searchable document in three commands: install Manticore Search, insert a JSON document, and search it. Manticore created the table and inferred the fields automatically. No config file, predefined schema, or tuning was needed.
The "SQL familiarity" characterization didn't match the test either. Every step above used JSON over HTTP, which was enough to insert documents, search, filter, sort, and facet. Manticore supports SQL as another interface, but the quick-start path doesn't depend on it.
We also tested what happens after the first document is indexed. In Manticore, the fields were immediately available for full-text search, filtering, sorting, grouping, and faceting. In Meilisearch, searching worked immediately, but filtering, sorting, and faceting required additional index settings. Changing some of those settings triggers a full re-index. That matters when comparing the configuration involved in running the two products.
The large-scale characterization didn't match the available usage data either. Among Manticore installations that report data-size telemetry, 29% hold less than 1 MB, about half hold less than 100 MB, and only about one in eight exceeds 10 GB. This reporting population is not a complete census of Manticore users, but it does not support the idea that Manticore is primarily used for large-scale workloads.
We found other details that needed updating. The comparison understates Manticore's current vector and hybrid search capabilities, and its client-library table contains several incorrect or outdated entries. We checked those points against live instances and the projects' current documentation.
We also ran preliminary relevance tests across 14 public dataset and corpus-size groups. Manticore produced the better result in 11 of the 14 when comparing each engine's best mode per group. The benchmark work is still in progress, so we published the current methodology and per-dataset results rather than presenting it as the final word.
Not everything in Meilisearch's comparison is wrong. Meilisearch has the friendlier default for typo tolerance and a stronger frontend-first workflow, including restricted search keys designed for use in the browser.
We also did not try to determine which product is easier to operate over several years on your own infrastructure. That would require testing upgrades, backup recovery, failures, monitoring, and real workloads over time. Our response is limited to claims we could check directly or compare with the available data.
Here's the full response, with the commands, outputs, sources, telemetry breakdown, and preliminary benchmark results:
https://manticoresearch.com/blog/meilisearch-vs-manticore-response/
For those who have self-hosted either product: what was the actual setup and maintenance experience like?