Best Vector Databases for Images in 2026
A practical guide to vector databases optimized for image similarity search. We benchmarked query latency, indexing speed, and recall across millions of image embeddings.
How We Evaluated
Query Performance
Latency and throughput for nearest-neighbor search on high-dimensional image embeddings.
Scalability
Ability to handle tens of millions of vectors without degradation in speed or accuracy.
Filtering Support
Quality of metadata filtering alongside vector search for practical production use.
Operational Ease
Deployment options, managed offerings, monitoring, and day-to-day operational overhead.
Qdrant
High-performance vector search engine built in Rust with advanced filtering, payload indexing, and multi-vector support. Excellent for image search applications requiring complex metadata filters alongside similarity search.
Pros
- +Fast query latency even at 100M+ vectors
- +Advanced payload filtering during vector search
- +Named vectors for multi-modal embeddings per point
- +Open-source with managed cloud option
Cons
- -Requires separate embedding generation pipeline
- -Cluster management for very large deployments
- -Smaller community than Elasticsearch ecosystem
- -Write throughput lower than read throughput
Mixpeek
While not a standalone vector database, Mixpeek provides an end-to-end platform that handles image embedding generation, vector storage (via Qdrant), and advanced retrieval -- eliminating the need to manage a separate vector DB.
Pros
- +No need to manage embedding pipelines separately
- +Handles image ingestion through vector storage to retrieval
- +Advanced retrieval models beyond basic kNN search
- +Cross-modal search (find images by text or other images)
Cons
- -Not a standalone vector database
- -Less flexibility if you want to use a different vector store
- -Requires using the full Mixpeek pipeline
Pinecone
Fully managed vector database designed for simplicity. Offers serverless and pod-based deployment options with straightforward APIs for storing and querying image embeddings.
Pros
- +Fully managed with zero operational overhead
- +Simple API that is easy to get started with
- +Serverless option scales to zero
- +Good metadata filtering support
Cons
- -No self-hosting option
- -Pricing can be unpredictable at scale
- -Limited advanced query capabilities compared to Qdrant
- -No multi-vector support per record
Weaviate
Open-source vector database with built-in vectorization modules. Can generate embeddings during ingestion using CLIP and other models, reducing the need for external embedding services.
Pros
- +Built-in vectorizer modules (CLIP, BERT, etc.)
- +GraphQL and REST APIs for flexible querying
- +Hybrid search combining BM25 and vector search
- +Active open-source community
Cons
- -Built-in vectorizers add complexity and resource usage
- -Higher memory footprint than Qdrant
- -Performance degrades with complex cross-references
- -Multi-tenancy support is relatively new
Milvus
Scalable open-source vector database built for billion-scale similarity search. Designed for high throughput with GPU-accelerated indexing and distributed architecture.
Pros
- +Handles billion-scale vector collections
- +GPU-accelerated indexing for faster builds
- +Multiple index types (IVF, HNSW, DiskANN)
- +Good partition and sharding support
Cons
- -Complex deployment and cluster management
- -Higher operational overhead than managed alternatives
- -Metadata filtering less flexible than Qdrant
- -Documentation can be inconsistent across versions
LanceDB
Serverless, embedded vector database using columnar storage on object stores. Ideal for cost-effective image embedding storage with zero-copy access patterns.
Pros
- +Extremely cost-effective storage on S3/GCS
- +Zero-copy access for fast reads
- +Embedded architecture with no server to manage
- +Native Python and JavaScript SDKs
Cons
- -Query latency higher than in-memory vector databases
- -Smaller feature set compared to Qdrant or Milvus
- -Less suitable for real-time, low-latency applications
- -Ecosystem and tooling still maturing
Frequently Asked Questions
What embedding model should I use for image search?
For general image similarity search, CLIP (ViT-L/14) remains the most popular choice due to its strong zero-shot performance and ability to handle text-to-image queries. For domain-specific applications (medical imaging, fashion, etc.), fine-tuned models or SigLIP typically perform better. Embedding dimensions of 512-768 offer a good balance between quality and storage costs.
How many vectors can a typical vector database handle?
Most modern vector databases comfortably handle 10-100 million vectors on a single node with sub-50ms query latency. For billion-scale collections, distributed deployments with Milvus or Qdrant clusters are recommended. The limiting factor is usually RAM: a 768-dimensional float32 embedding uses about 3KB, so 100M vectors need roughly 300GB of RAM for in-memory search.
Should I use a standalone vector database or an end-to-end platform?
If you already have embedding generation pipelines and just need fast vector search, a standalone database like Qdrant or Pinecone is the right choice. If you are building from scratch and need to handle raw images through to search results, an end-to-end platform like Mixpeek reduces complexity by managing the entire pipeline including embedding generation, storage, and retrieval.
What is the difference between HNSW and IVF indexes for image search?
HNSW (Hierarchical Navigable Small World) offers consistently low latency and high recall but uses more memory. IVF (Inverted File Index) uses less memory by partitioning vectors into clusters but requires tuning the number of probes for the speed/accuracy trade-off. For most image search applications under 100M vectors, HNSW is recommended for its simplicity and reliable performance.
Ready to Get Started with Mixpeek?
See why teams choose Mixpeek for multimodal AI. Book a demo to explore how our platform can transform your data workflows.
Explore Other Curated Lists
Best Multimodal AI APIs
A hands-on comparison of the top multimodal AI APIs for processing text, images, video, and audio through a single integration. We evaluated latency, modality coverage, retrieval quality, and developer experience.
Best Video Search Tools
We tested the leading video search and understanding platforms on real-world content libraries. This guide covers visual search, scene detection, transcript-based retrieval, and action recognition.
Best AI Content Moderation Tools
We evaluated content moderation platforms across image, video, text, and audio moderation. This guide covers accuracy, latency, customization, and compliance features for trust and safety teams.