We regularly test different AI applications, most recently taking another look at You.com. The platform claims to cite more sources than other AI tools and therefore provide more reliable answers. We wanted to see whether this claim holds up in practice. To do so, we tested a range of current and historical queries using the free version and compared the results with Google’s AI Mode. Two examples:
Query on Munich City Council and the recently negotiated coalition-building process:
- You.com provided a useful structure with information on the state of the negotiations and the main issues involved. However, the figures for election results and seat distribution were problematic: almost all of them contained minor errors.
- When we pointed out the mistakes, the AI responded that the underlying search results referred to federal rather than local elections and that it could therefore not verify the figures reliably. It said that additional sources or guidance would be needed to produce correct results.
- By comparison, Google’s AI Mode was more accurate. Apart from mixing up the results for Volt and Die Linke, the information was correct.
Query on the “Isar Plan”, the completed river restoration project in Munich, and fun facts about it:
- You.com did not provide any false information in its fun facts, but the answers remained fairly general and only addressed the actual request superficially. It did not fully grasp what we meant by “fun facts”.
- Google’s AI Mode responded much more specifically and provided concrete, interesting facts with greater added value.
Other observations about You.com:
- You.com often cited more sources than Google’s AI Mode, in some cases twice as many. This was not consistent, however: for some queries, AI Mode analysed more sources.
- There was considerable overlap in the sources used, with both systems relying mainly on official municipal websites and media sources.
- In some cases, You.com only returned an answer after several minutes, having initially indicated that no results could be provided. Our impression was that the system occasionally takes additional processing time.
Our conclusion: At present, You.com has not fully convinced us. Although it tends to analyse more sources on average, this does not reliably translate into higher-quality answers.
By Ida Kandler