No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Qdrant vs Vespa comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Qdrant
Ranking in Open Source Databases
5th
Ranking in Vector Databases
2nd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
AI Data Analysis (6th)
Vespa
Ranking in Open Source Databases
18th
Ranking in Vector Databases
18th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.3
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Open Source Databases category, the mindshare of Qdrant is 4.3%, up from 4.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Vespa is 1.7%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Open Source Databases Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Qdrant4.3%
Vespa1.7%
Other94.0%
Open Source Databases
 

Featured Reviews

Pawel Cislo - PeerSpot reviewer
MLOps Engineer at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Adaptive assistant has delivered faster grounded answers and has reduced token costs significantly
The main limitations I notice come down to developer experience and native features rather than performance. Building hybrid retrieval and fusion pipelines still requires considerable manual orchestration and code. Having more built-in multi-query fusion strategies natively inside Qdrant would be a significant time-saver. Additionally, managing dynamic metadata schemas and tracking index build progress during bulk ingest could be more transparent in the web UI. To make things easier for developers, Qdrant could provide more native tools for managing payload schema evolution over time. As metadata needs change in production RAG systems, updating existing payloads across large collections currently requires custom migration scripts. Built-in schema versioning and simpler automated index testing during CI/CD would make running Qdrant in rapidly evolving production environments even smoother. I rate Qdrant 9 out of 10 because its speed, sub-15 millisecond retrieval, and single-stage payload filtering make it top-tier for production RAG pipelines. I deduct one point mainly for developer experience. Setting up multi-query fusion still requires extra boilerplate code, payload metadata schema updates require custom migration scripts, and real-time visibility into HNSW graph indexing progress during bulk ingest could be improved in the web UI.
Ganaraj Amakrishna - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Technical Architect at Zoro UK
Vector search has improved e‑commerce relevance but setup and learning curve still need work
Vespa definitely had its own set of challenges. It was really hard to get into initially, especially when I started implementing it in 2024 along with one junior employee, and the lack of documentation made it difficult. I aimed for an implementation with ColBERT, a sparse embedding mechanism, which I believed would fit well for e-commerce. We went through iterations during A/B testing because the initial set did not work as expected, which extended the process to about one and a half years. Vespa has a considerable learning curve, making it challenging for most people to get into, and it is also expensive, which can deter startups or those with smaller budgets from using it. Community support was decent, and we turned to it for clarifications. However, substantial improvements in documentation are necessary, especially more examples for handling DSL effectively. Having a runtime testing feature would greatly facilitate quick iterations.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Qdrant has reduced our response time to less than one second for our 128 KB token sizes, and we are satisfied with that performance."
"Qdrant is one of the best vector databases out there that is also open source."
"Qdrant has positively impacted my organization by significantly improving our RAG system's latency, cost-efficiency, and accuracy."
"Using Qdrant's hybrid search capability has improved my search results."
"Qdrant is a good and scalable vector database, and it is free."
"Qdrant is an excellent vector database that anyone would want to use with RAG AI."
"Qdrant has positively impacted my organization mainly by reducing usage costs for AI because in the older system, in order to get the context, we were just dumping everything into the system, which would inflate the cost of the API, whatever AI we were using, such as OpenAI or Claude."
"An accuracy boost was definitely observed from 45 to 50% using Faiss to around 85 to 95% using Qdrant, and the users are really happy as they are getting suggested really good schemes that would take a lot of time to find."
"The best feature to me is the LTR feature, the ranking feature to be specific."
"Vespa is very good and it improves our product, and we got more clients."
"While conducting A/B testing, Vespa seemed to be performing slightly better than Elasticsearch, especially in search relevancy within live production systems, and its performance was decent."
 

Cons

"Architectural complexity was a key friction point, as our primary database was set in Supabase, necessitating synchronization of two separate systems for user data, permissions, and states."
"A lot of our work is agentic right now, and we have also segmented the content to be logical, so there's not a lot of vector search anymore."
"The area for improvement in Qdrant is its clustering capability. While it has clustering functionality, it is not easy to set up, and not everyone can configure the clustering, so there is room for improvement in the clustering configuration."
"Qdrant is pretty good overall, but it can be improved. For example, the UI could be better, and it has pretty much very generic features that every other vector database provides."
"One of the key limitations is that Qdrant does not have built-in role-based access control, and while being self-hosted is a benefit, it can also be improved."
"The file system lock in Qdrant prevents the API and scripts from hitting it directly, and to surpass this limitation, I have to run Qdrant client as a service, which incurs additional costs for running it continuously, so if something about that could be done, it would be really amazing."
"The main limitations I notice come down to developer experience and native features rather than performance."
"There can always be improvements needed for Qdrant, but I do not want to add anything at this time."
"We want Vespa to implement some UI features so that we can visualize how our data goes and what embeddings it stores."
"The integration is actually a pain."
"Vespa has a considerable learning curve, making it challenging for most people to get into, and it is also expensive, which can deter startups or those with smaller budgets from using it."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Open Source Databases solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Energy/Utilities Company
9%
Wholesaler/Distributor
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Qdrant?
I find Qdrant's pricing and licensing extremely straightforward and cost-effective. The core product is open source under Apache 2.0, so initial experimentation and local integration testing cost n...
What needs improvement with Qdrant?
Qdrant is available through a containerized Docker, but a normal deployment in Qdrant is not there, and that can actually be worked out. That was one aspect I thought about, because I need to have ...
What is your primary use case for Qdrant?
We have a full-fledged RAG system using Qdrant Vector Database, and that is how it has benefited us. For example, we have implemented a techno-commercial evaluator using that, and it is in producti...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Vespa?
The setup cost is definitely huge, and pricing is also steep. In terms of licensing, it seems generous for those who do not want to engage with Vespa's hosted services.
What needs improvement with Vespa?
Vespa definitely had its own set of challenges. It was really hard to get into initially, especially when I started implementing it in 2024 along with one junior employee, and the lack of documenta...
What is your primary use case for Vespa?
My main use case for Vespa is implementing it as the back-end search engine for an e-commerce site, where we have about six million products, or six million SKUs, that we are selling. I implemented...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

1. Airbnb 2. Amazon 3. Apple 4. BMW 5.Cisco 6. CocaCola 7. Dell 8. Disney 9. Google 10. HP 11. IBM 12. Intel 13. JPMorgan Chase 14. Kraft Heinz 15. L'Oreal 16. McDonalds 17. Merck 18. Microsoft 19. Nike20. Oracle 21. PG 22. PepsiCo 23. Procter and Gamble 24. Samsung 25. Shell 26. Sony 27. Toyota 28. Visa 29. Walmart 30. WeWork
1. Yahoo 2. Verizon Media 3. Oath 4. Tumblr 5. AOL 6. Huffington Post 7. TechCrunch 8. Engadget 9. MapQuest 10. Moviefone 11. Autoblog 12. AOL Mail 13. Yahoo Mail 14. Yahoo Finance 15. Yahoo Sports 16. Yahoo News 17. Yahoo Search 18. Yahoo Answers 19. Yahoo Messenger 20. Yahoo Groups 21. Yahoo Weather 22. Yahoo Maps 23. Yahoo Fantasy Sports 24. Yahoo TV 25. Yahoo Movies 26. Yahoo Music 27. Yahoo Style 28. Yahoo Beauty 29. Yahoo Travel 30. Yahoo Autos 31. Yahoo Health 32. Yahoo Tech
Find out what your peers are saying about Qdrant vs. Vespa and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.