Search Engines Evaluation and Suggestions
Donate
Search engines are a complex topic that needs to be looked at from different angles. At Kicksecure we are not sponsored by any search engine and do not promote any of them. We can only provide our criteria and suggestions.
Introduction[edit]
For the convenience of our users the Kicksecure (and Whonix) browser local welcome pages have curated search engine suggestions. Also at other places we might mention search engines. These are neither endorsements nor promotions. See also Non-Endorsement policy. We are not sponsored by any search engine. These are suggestions solely based on our own criteria, that a user can ignore or follow.
To understand more in depth how we rank search engines read our search engine criteria.
To understand which search engines we currently rank in which order, see our search engine evaluation.
Usually we update this evaluation very rarely (maybe once a year) as this topic is NOT our project focus. If you are really sure that,
- (1) our evaluation of a specific search engine is very flawed; AND
- (2) you can back your claims with research then feel free to file a Search Engine Reevaluation Request.
But PLEASE be very mindful of the Law of Triviality
as we cannot and will not deal simply with taste and opinion on this topic as it is very complex, very easy to fall into triviality and not our project focus.
Search Engines Criteria[edit]
Search engines suggestions are chosen by the following criteria and considerations. There is NO sponsorship by any search engine provider.
1 Must-Have Criteria for search engines. A search engine:
- Needs to provide GOOD RESULTS: Even if a search engine doesn’t censor, its results can still be bad. This can happen if its web crawler is poor (bad at analyzing pages), if it doesn't index enough websites due to low resources, or if it uses a weak algorithm. Quality can be hard to measure, but popularity (number of users) often shows how good it is—because users tend to choose engines that give them what they want. Another way to evaluate it is to use the search engine as your main one for a week. If it performs well, it's likely good enough.
- Needs to have little to NO CENSORSHIP: Censorship is hard to prove objectively, especially proving a negative. But if there is enough trustworthy third-party research or if the search engine itself admits to censorship, then it can be reasonably confirmed. "Significant censorship" means search results are heavily distorted, hiding accurate results in favor of less accurate ones. Even if some topics are censored more (like violent content) but other topics less than on other search engines, the engine might still be acceptable.
- Needs to be RELIABLE: The search engine should be online nearly all the time (99.99% uptime or more). Also, the organization behind it should be expected to continue for at least the next 5 years.
- Needs to be relatively POLITICALLY AGNOSTIC: Some search engines may show a strong political bias. This project aims to stay politically neutral to be inclusive and avoid pushing any agenda. The focus is on security and privacy. That’s why politically strongly biased search engines are avoided.
2 Booster Criteria for search engines - not needed but boosting the rating:
- Less captcha wrappers: Some search engines bombard users with captchas or block them completely if their network is flagged (for example, Tor users, VPN users, or even some normal internet connections). Some privacy-focused search engine wrappers trigger fewer captchas. So this is seen as a useful feature.
- Availability on clearnet and Tor : Some search engines are clearnet-only or Tor-only. It's slightly advantageous to be available on both.
3 Non-criteria for search engines, NOT considered:
- Not considered: Privacy by policy / ownership / location / hosted by which data center: These factors are not considered. Even trusted projects like Debian and the Tor Project use services like AWS, Fastly, and CDNs.[1] Most privacy claims by search engines are just "privacy by policy", and key infrastructure remains hidden. That’s why trust is still needed. For comparison, Kicksecure focuses on security by design and Whonix on anonymity by design. Anything based only on policy is out of scope.
- Not considered: Privacy wrappers: If a search engine only acts as a privacy wrapper, it’s not considered.
- Not considered: Non-JavaScript support: This isn’t practical. Most modern websites need JavaScript. Limiting to only no-JavaScript search engines would drastically cut our options.
- Not considered: Open Source: Very few search engines are Open Source. And even if they are, without access to their databases, the Open Source code is of limited use. For example, even if Google Search were Open Source, very few could actually run it. See also: Artificial intelligence and Policy On Non-Freedom Software
- Not considered: open database: Very few search engines, if any, offer an open database.
- Not considered: decentralization: Very few search engines, if any, are decentralized.
+ Forum discussions (not part of criteria):
- https://forums.kicksecure.com/t/add-searxng-and-startpage-buttons-to-kicksecure-welcome-page/992
- https://forums.whonix.org/t/local-browser-homepage-for-tor-browser-in-whonix/347/101
Search Engines Evaluation[edit]
This evaluation is not a universal statement on these search engines, but an assessment based on our criteria.
| Search Engine | Fits all must-have criteria | Notes | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|
Brave
|
Yes | Good search results. Has its own crawler and index [2]. | All |
Qwant
|
Yes | Great search results. Has its own crawler and index [3]. | Kicksecure only - cannot be reached over Tor |
perplexity
|
Yes | Great search results. | Kicksecure only - cannot be reached over Tor |
startpage
|
Yes | Fewer captchas. Great search results. Google wrapper. |
All |
DuckDuckGo
|
Yes | Good search results. Good "bang" functionality. Main index is from Bing, enhanced by its own limited crawler (for Wikipedia, etc.). |
All |
Ahmia
|
Yes | Unique specialized service (onion service search engine). Good onion search results. | Whonix only - can be reached over clearnet and Tor, but only searches onion services which can only be reached over Tor |
mojeek
|
Yes | Good search results. Has its own crawler and index. [4] | Kicksecure only - cannot be reached over Tor |
Disqualified Search Engines[edit]
These search engines failed one or more of our criteria.
| Search Engine | Fits all must-have criteria | Notes |
|---|---|---|
YaCy
|
No | No longer delivers great search results; insufficient user feature requests |
ecosia
|
No | No longer delivers great search results; insufficient user feature requests |
MetaGer
|
No | No longer delivers great search results; insufficient user feature requests |
peekier
|
No | No longer exists. |
4get.ca
|
No | Not politically agnostic [5] (self-hosted multi-search engine wrapper) |
SearXNG - disroot
|
No | Not politically agnostic [6] (self-hosted multi-search engine wrapper) |
Footnotes[edit]
- ↑
- Debian uses CDNs Amazon AWS and Fastly
- Tor Project Sponsors Page Quote
Fastly’s global edge cloud platform processes, serves, and secures applications as close to users as possible, at the edge of the network. Fastly generously hosts our Tor Browser update downloads that can be fetched anonymously.
- Fastly Blog: Sponsoring Tor Project Content Delivery Services
- Self-Hosting vs Third Party Hosting
- Debian uses CDNs Amazon AWS and Fastly
- ↑ FAQ: Does Brave Search have its own Web crawler?
- ↑ Web indexing: where is Qwant’s independence?
- ↑ Is Mojeek just another Bing or Google syndicate?
- ↑ https://4get.ca/about
- ↑ https://disroot.org/
A secure by default operating system with the latest security research in place.
At
Kicksecure we value freedom and trust, supporting Open Source and Freedom Software
2012-
2025 ENCRYPTED SUPPORT LLC
We believe security software like Kicksecure needs to remain Open Source and independent. Would you help sustain and grow the project? Learn more about our 13 year success story and maybe DONATE!