I did look for a while. Even got to present on it: http://www.slideshare.net/arafalov/solr-vs-elasticsearch-case-by-case http://www.slideshare.net/arafalov/solr

I did look for a while. Even got to present on it: http://www.slideshare.net/arafalov/solr-vs-elasticsearch-case-by-case http://www.slideshare.net/arafalov/solr-vs-elasticsearch-cas... (video out soon) # The percolation apparently does not scale: (as compared to https://github.com/flaxsearch/luwak https://github.com/flaxsearch/luwak - Not in Solr yet, granted ), # The sharding and distribution has (in ES 1.3) serious issues due to the in-house implementation (http://aphyr.com/posts/317-call-me-maybe-elasticsearch http://aphyr.com/posts/317-call-me-maybe-elasticsearch) # The REST interface is nice but is also coming to Solr really fast # The rivers are deprecated. The scripting (enabled by default originally) had to be reworked due to Amazon shutting down every EC2 Elasticsearch instance they detected. # Some other features have been deprecated and now are basically the same as Solr (e.g. copy_to vs. copyField). The production recommendations from Elasticsearch specialists are to disable dynamic schema, _source, and _all fields. Not that Elasticsearch is bad. I just feel it is not fair to compare a commercial solution (that does not even give you admin console for free) to a fully open-source solution (that does). If you are planning to pay money for commercial solution, then compare it with another commercial solution (e.g. LucidWorks Fusion). Or at least compare latest Elasticsearch (1.4) to the latest Solr (4.10.2 currently).