Wolfram Alpha Isn't Google, so Stop Comparing Them

Stephen Wolfram's new knowledge engine, Wolfram Alpha goes live today, providing a new kind of search for Internet users. As a result, the Internets are alive with comments about how Alpha compares to Google. But that's something you shouldn't do.

When I previously wrote about Wolfram Alpha, I described its potential as a "fact computer" and described how it intelligently trawls through a vast database of knowledge using algorithms to calculate its responses. It works like the computer from Star Trek: Ask it about an orbital calculation, and it'll respond—ask it if football fans like watching games on TV and it flounders.

Check out some example searches. I typed in the zip code for Beverly Hills into Alpha and Google—the results are below.

Alpha and Google: 90210

Google provided a quick map of the area, a link to city-data.com for statistics, a link to Forbes' "Most Expensive Zip Codes" list and other such results. Wolfram Alpha provided a basic map, reeled off a hundred different stats down to the number of congressional districts in Beverly Hills and the total number of mail receptacles. And right at the bottom of the results, it reported the current local time and weather: 16ºC and overcast.

I also typed in a date: May 31, 1979—long before the Internet was alive, so the search wouldn't just trawl up simple weblinks written on a specific day.


From Wolfram Alpha I could find out that that date was 29 years, 11 months and 18 days ago, that it was the 151st day in the 22nd week of 1979 and so on. Google's first response was a Kakophone.com link which could tell me what was number one in the Billboard charts that day, or what won the Best Picture Oscar that year. There was a link to the New York review of books edition issued on that day, and many news-related links after that.

And here's the killer query. I actually did ask both services whether football fans like watching on TV.

Wolfram Alpha just balked at it, politely reporting it didn't know "what to do" with the input, and suggested possible onward searches relating to eight other topics, including "National Football League," "Culture and Media" and "Socio Economic Data." I suspect if you were diligent you could do some advanced data analysis using those onward tools and come up with a viewpoint in answer to the question.

Google's first response was a link to a story headlined "People like to watch Alabama football on TV and in person." And the results list was rich with opinion-based stories. By reading through the linked sites, probably finding some viewer stats embedded in a few, and doing some of your own thinking, you'd probably come up with the conclusion "Yes, they do. Very much."

That question is difficult, since it embodies a problem that is neither particularly statistical or fact based, and its response is highly subjective. To solve that query is, in fact, beyond the ken of current technology, since it requires what's called "soft" analysis to synthesize different data into a coherent whole, and that's currently a skill reserved for the gray stuff between your ears.

That is, in fact, the point. Wolfram Alpha and Google just aren't the same—even with Google's recent and upcoming advanced search tweaks. One is a precise and fact-based rich data source that can provide all the details on a fact you need—and more—very quickly, whereas the other is essentially a smart list of things that match the text of your query, covering a variety of angles from hard data to opinions, to imagery. Alpha will be invaluable to scientists, technology writers, and when you need to know something detailed about a specific topic, event, or otherwise. Google is useful for fuzzier answers, and when you just want to know what people are saying. You have to do your own fuzzy grey matter-based analysis to determine which service will best provide the answer you need.

[Wolfram Alpha]

Related: Is Wolfram Alpha The Next Big Thing in Web Search?
Related:Fast Company 50: Google
Related: Google Unveils New Search Powers, Speeds Towards Live Data

Add New Comment


  • Kit Eaton

    @Adam. Interesting idea. Are you going to add Bing in there too? @Subhankar But your point is contradictory: It is an expert site, and general opinion is that experts will be the people who use it the most...so they'll want to stay there and use it. And I believe it doesn't use webcrawlers like other search engines--Wolfram maintains a vast digital fact database that it uses to calculate its responses. @Tulsi :-)

  • Subhankar Ray

    WolframAlpha is an expert system more like Wikipedia than a search engine. The very reason that it encourage its visitors to stay at its website, its crawler will be less popular with the webmasters.

    By the way, why not use http://aafter.com – a web search engine that links you to most of the useful questions/answers of day-to-day life.

  • Tulsi Zeidman

    I ran the query "python tutorial" on Adam's googfram site and the results were very telling. If Wolfram is really Alpha, it's fair to be a little forgiving, though.
    @Adam, I like the tool but you might want to fix something... you spelled 'google' wrong!

  • Walt Gordon Jones

    I understand your intent, but I have to respectfully disagree. I think it risks being dogmatic and closed minded to forbid comparing anything, but particularly in this case, Google and Wolfram|Alpha.

    While it is valid to note that the strengths of the two engines are different, that they have different data stores to draw on, and the query language is somewhat different, it is still fair to expect Wolfram|Alpha to outperform Google on the kinds of queries it was made to do well.

    I invite you to read http://waltgordonjones.com/206... where i share my experiences comparing the two services based on true "computational" queries such as finding the overlapping latitudes of two geopolitical regions.

    We make the world a better place when we question, analyze, and critique, not when we politely pretend something is better than it is. This is true especially when that thing has merit and great potential, as Wolfram|Alpha perhaps does.

    Walt Gordon Jones

  • Kit Eaton

    @Paul. But it was hardly searchable from the entire planet. I guess you can take it to mean the WWW, which was created in CERN--but internet and www have come to be interchangeable nowadays. The main point was to avoid merely scooping up meaningless posts carrying a specific date--which, in itself, tells you something about how Google's different to WA.

  • Paul Stamatiou

    not exactly long before the internet was alive.. the first node went up in 1969 at UCLA. :-)