Pyyan / Compare / LanceDB vs Qdrant vs Pinecone
LanceDB vs Qdrant vs Pinecone
3 of 5Vector Databases · verified 13 Aug 2026
| Specification | LanceDB | Qdrant | Pinecone |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary | Embedded, multimodal, columnar. | The fastest of the purpose-built stores. | Managed, and the smoothest to operate. |
| Index | IVF-PQ, HNSW | HNSW | Proprietary |
| Hybrid search | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Hosting | Embedded and managed | Self-host and managed | Managed only |
| Licence | Apache 2.0 | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| p50 latency | Varies | 4ms | <10ms |
| Category | Vector Databases | Vector Databases | Vector Databases |
| Official | LanceDB ↗ | Qdrant ↗ | Pinecone ↗ |
Highlighted rows are where these differ.
LanceDB
- Lance columnar format, versioned like a table
- Runs in-process, no service to operate
Best for multimodal data and local apps.
Qdrant
- Written in Rust; 10 to 25% faster than Weaviate or Milvus on common workloads
- Strong filtering alongside vector search
- Self-host or managed, same engine
Best for latency-sensitive retrieval.
Pinecone
- Sub-10ms p50 with nothing to maintain
- Costs draw scrutiny at scale; Notion moved away and cut spend ~60%
Best for teams who do not want to run a database.