Skip to main content
Back to Articles

Report: Exa AI vs OpenAI for AI-powered Search

7 min read
11/14/2025
Regenerate

Executive summary

Short version: Exa is a specialized AI search service (web-index + vector retrieval + content fetch) that advertises built-in, citation-friendly endpoints for RAG workflows; OpenAI supplies the core building blocks for semantic search (embeddings, Responses API with file_search/web_search tools) but typically requires glue (vector DB, indexing, crawling) and extra engineering. Each approach has trade-offs: Exa gives a more integrated web-search-for-LLMs product that speeds time-to-value and returns page context/citations out of the box; OpenAI gives more flexibility, broader model ecosystem and strong tooling, but you must assemble the retrieval layer and manage costs/latency.

Key claims inspected

  • Claim A (Exa): "Exa provides web-scale semantic search with built-in content fetching, highlights, and citations suitable for RAG."
  • Claim B (Exa): "Exa offers a high-performance Fast mode (sub-350ms) and production-grade latency/throughput for real-time AI search."
  • Claim C (OpenAI): "OpenAI’s Embeddings API + Responses API (file_search/web_search) are a robust foundation for production semantic search/RAG, with official guidance and tooling."

Sources: Exa product pages and docs (https://exa.ai, https://docs.exa.ai/exa-api), Exa blog posts (Exa 2.0 / exa-code), OpenAI docs for Embeddings + Responses (platform.openai.com/docs/guides/tools-file-search), community writeups and case studies (DoorDash RAG example), and independent discussion threads about embedding latency & vector-store tradeoffs.

What proponents say

  • Exa supporters highlight that Exa runs its own web index, provides search endpoints that return full parsed content and highlights, and an "Answer"/"Research" endpoint that emits citations and structured JSON — making it straightforward to ground LLM answers without building a crawler+index pipeline first (Exa API page; Exa docs).

"One API to connect your products to powerful web search" — Exa homepage and product docs show search, contents, answer and research endpoints as first-class features. (https://exa.ai)

  • Exa publishes blog posts and changelogs describing a "Fast" search type and exa-code context service intended to supply dense, low-token contexts for coding agents; their marketing and case study material claims sub-second latencies and large-scale indexing. (https://exa.ai/blog/exa-code; https://docs.exa.ai/changelog/new-fast-search-type)

  • OpenAI’s documentation shows explicit, supported patterns for building RAG: use Embeddings to index documents, store vectors in a vector store, then call Responses API (file_search tool or pass retrieved context) to ground answers. OpenAI supplies guides and sample code demonstrating the flow; real-world case studies and community writeups (DoorDash, blog posts) show this pattern in production. (https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/tools-file-search)

"Allow models to search your files for relevant information before generating a response." — OpenAI Responses/file_search docs (platform.openai.com/docs/guides/tools-file-search)

What critics/caveats point out

  • Exa: critics point to hallucination risks and gaps. LLM-powered search can still hallucinate or produce inaccurate citations; Exa’s evaluation methodology emphasizes relevance and quality but critics note fewer independent benchmarks focused on citation accuracy and edge-case behavior (docs & critical blog posts). Exa also may omit certain web sources depending on crawl coverage and filtering. (Exa docs & blog; external analyses)

  • Exa performance: Exa claims fast modes, but independent third-party benchmarks are scarce in public sources. There are documented implementation caveats (rate limits, and community reports about occasional API errors). Production outcomes often depend on query type, chosen endpoint (Fast vs Deep), and the volume of concurrent traffic. (Exa blog, changelog, and community notes)

  • OpenAI: building a complete search product with OpenAI requires extra components — vector DBs (Pinecone, Milvus, Weaviate, etc.), a document ingestion pipeline, and monitoring. Community reports also call out embedding-service latency variability and cost concerns at scale (community posts and benchmarking writeups). While Responses API adds file_search and tools that reduce plumbing, many teams still prefer an external vector-store for advanced indexing, filtering, and performance. (OpenAI docs; community threads; benchmarking articles)

Practical comparison (decision matrix)

  • Time-to-launch / Minimal plumbing: Exa wins. It provides web crawling, parsing, retrieval, content fetching and answer endpoints out of the box so you can prototype RAG quickly.

  • Control & custom data: OpenAI + vector DB wins. If you need to index private documents, enforce complex indexing rules, or run on private infra, assembling your own pipeline with embeddings gives max control.

  • Citation & source context: Exa has a clear advantage for web grounding (returns page contents and citations). OpenAI can provide citations when combined with web_search/file_search tools or by passing retrieved chunks, but that requires building the retrieval layer or using Responses file_search.

  • Performance & latency: Exa advertises a Fast mode and case studies that claim low latency; however independent benchmarks are limited. OpenAI can be fast for embeddings and model calls but embedding latency variability and the overhead of external vector-store lookups are real considerations. For strict sub-300–400ms SLAs you should benchmark both with your realistic workload.

  • Cost: OpenAI costs can scale quickly because embedding and model tokens are billed per request; Exa uses per-API pricing for search/contents/answers which may be more cost-effective if you primarily need web search and content retrieval — yet exact cost depends on query patterns and volume. Run an estimate using your expected QPS and average page sizes.

  • Compliance & privacy: Both vendors offer enterprise features. OpenAI has enterprise agreements and private deployments for some customers; Exa advertises SOC2, zero-data-retention and enterprise SLAs and VPC options — verify current offerings during procurement.

Short exemplar integration patterns

  • Exa-first (rapid RAG): call Exa Search → fetch Contents for top N results → pass content + citations into your LLM prompt (or use Exa Answer endpoint to get a cited response). Minimal infra, quick results.

  • OpenAI-first (custom RAG): ingest corpus → create embeddings via OpenAI Embeddings API → store in vector DB (Pinecone/Milvus/Weaviate) → on query: embed query, nearest-neighbor search → pass retrieved chunks into OpenAI Responses API (or call file_search) to generate grounded answer.

Recommendations

  • If you need fast time-to-market and web grounding out-of-the-box (search over public web + citations for RAG), try Exa and run a 2-week POC with your query patterns. Focus tests on: citation accuracy (are sources correct and reachable?), latency at target QPS, and content coverage for your domain.

  • If your data is private, you need fine-grained control over indexing, or you prefer to mix multiple embedding models and vector DBs, use OpenAI embeddings + Responses with an established vector store. Test embedding latency, storage costs, and retrieval accuracy with representative data.

  • In all cases: 1) run benchmarks on real queries and concurrency, 2) verify citation accuracy with human evaluation, 3) estimate running costs for expected volume.

Useful citations & docs

Inline follow-up links (deeper topics)

Conclusion

Exa and OpenAI approach AI search from different layers: Exa is a vertically integrated web search-for-LLMs product (crawl → index → retrieval → content) that reduces engineering overhead for web-grounded RAG; OpenAI supplies flexible primitives (models, embeddings, Responses) that are ideal when you want control over private data, model choice, and the retrieval stack. Pick Exa for fast, web-centric prototypes and pick OpenAI (plus a vector DB) when you need customization, private corpora, or multi-model flexibility.

Explore Further