The 8 Best Glean Alternatives for Enterprise AI Search in 2026

---

Microsoft Copilot, Onyx, and Guru lead the strongest Glean alternatives in 2026, each solving a different reason you might be looking: M365-native embedding, open-source self-hosting, or curated-answer trust. Glean does not publish pricing and gates evaluation behind a 100-seat minimum; third-party buyer research puts its all-in cost near $50-75 per user per month before infrastructure and admin overhead, though Glean itself has never confirmed that figure. All 8 real alternatives are compared below on pricing, G2 rating, and setup time, alongside the governed-context question none of the 8 answers on its own.

---

*“N/A” means no G2 rating could be independently confirmed at research time, not that the product lacks reviews; verify directly on G2 before citing a figure. **Elastic and Perplexity’s ratings are their general-product G2 profiles (Elasticsearch and Perplexity AI respectively), the closest confirmed figures available; neither vendor splits out a separate “AI Search” or “Enterprise” tier rating on G2. ***Guru’s own pricing page gates its Business-tier rate behind a sales call; the widely cited “$25/user/month” figure appears only on third-party aggregators, not on Guru’s own site, so it isn’t shown here as a confirmed number.

Glean does not publish an entry price, so it is intentionally left out of the pricing column above; see “Why does Glean’s enterprise pricing stay opaque until a sales call?” below for the buyer-reported range.

---

Why consider Glean alternatives?

You typically start evaluating Glean alternatives for one of three reasons: the price is opaque until a sales call, the 100-seat minimum rules you out entirely, or your team has hit a specific answer-quality or connector gap. None of these reasons means Glean is a weak product. According to TechCrunch (2026-05-28), Glean crossed $300 million in annual recurring revenue in May 2026, tripling from $100 million about 15 months earlier, and it carries a 4.7-out-of-5 rating across 162 reviews on G2. CEO and co-founder Arvind Jain frames the company’s ambition plainly: “The layer we built initially, a good search product, required us to deeply understand people and how they work and what their preferences are. All of that is now becoming foundational in terms of building high-quality agents,” he told TechCrunch (2026-02-15). What’s missing from most “Glean alternatives” roundups is a comparison written by someone who isn’t also trying to win your Glean budget; every top-ranking page for this query today is authored by a direct Glean competitor, the same pattern already documented for Braintrust’s own alternatives search. And whichever tool wins your search budget, the underlying conversational search over enterprise data pattern behind all nine tools compared below stays the same.

Why does Glean’s enterprise pricing stay opaque until a sales call?

Glean publishes no rate card. Third-party buyer research from GoSearch’s total cost of ownership breakdown (2026), a company that competes directly with Glean and has an obvious incentive to make the number look large, estimates a fully-loaded deployment at $350,000 to $480,000 a year for mid-to-large organizations once infrastructure, admin staffing, and onboarding are added to the license. Treat that range as directional, not confirmed. Workativ’s own Glean pricing breakdown (2026) separately reports a $50-75 per user monthly range with a roughly 100-seat minimum, plus a further ~$15 per user monthly add-on for AI capabilities on top of the base license. Every one of these figures comes from a vendor with a reason to publish it, which is exactly why the figures above are treated as buyer-reported estimates rather than fact.

How does Glean’s 100-seat minimum affect mid-market and smaller teams?

A 100-seat minimum means a team of 40 cannot buy exactly what it needs; it either pays for 60 unused seats or looks elsewhere. That structural floor is the single most-cited reason smaller and mid-market teams start evaluating alternatives instead of Glean’s own pricing page, since Glean does not have one. Onyx and Amazon Q Business are the two alternatives on this list with no comparable seat floor.

Why do some Glean users report answer accuracy and hallucination issues?

Aggregated 2026 review-site commentary reports two recurring complaints beyond price: an interface some users find less intuitive than expected, and chat responses that occasionally hallucinate the way any LLM-backed system can. Neither complaint is unique to Glean; it is the same accuracy ceiling every tool compared here shares. Research on metadata-enriched retrieval (Yousuf et al., arXiv, 2026) found that even well-tuned embeddings only lift retrieval Context@5 from 33% to 55%, meaning close to half of retrieved results are still wrong even after tuning. That ceiling is architectural, not a Glean-specific flaw, and it applies equally to every semantic-search-driven tool compared here.

---

What should you look for in a Glean alternative?

Five dimensions separate these tools in practice, and none of them is the headline feature list.

• Pricing transparency: whether the vendor publishes a rate card or gates every number behind a sales call, the way Glean, Coveo, and Moveworks all do today.
• Self-hosting or open-source deployment: removes seat-minimum and per-user pricing entirely for teams willing to run their own infrastructure.
• Connector breadth, meaning how many source systems an AI tool can actually reach (Slack, Drive, Jira, Confluence, GitHub, ServiceNow) the tool indexes out of the box.
• Whether a revoked user’s agent identity and access is enforced at answer time or only at the next reindex cycle, the exact context freshness gap covered in enterprise search with AI.
• And whether the tool stops at finding an answer or can also resolve a ticket or trigger a step in an AI agent’s plan, which is Moveworks’s core differentiator.

One evaluation framework worth borrowing, cited here by framing rather than endorsement: Domo’s Glean alternatives comparison (2026), also a direct Glean competitor, proposes a “permission inheritance test”, checking whether a tool correctly inherits a source system’s existing access controls rather than flattening them. It’s a genuinely useful question to ask any vendor on this list, Domo included.

Feature	Why it matters	Alternatives offering this
Public, self-serve pricing	Removes the sales-call gate on basic budgeting	Microsoft Copilot, Onyx, Amazon Q Business
Self-hosting / open source	Removes seat minimums and per-user cost entirely	Onyx, Elastic AI Search
100+ connector breadth	Covers a genuinely fragmented enterprise tool stack	Glean, Coveo
Action-taking, not just retrieval	Resolves the task, not just the document	Moveworks
Cited, live-web-blended answers	Useful when internal knowledge alone is incomplete	Perplexity Enterprise
Native productivity-suite embedding	Fastest path to production for existing users	Microsoft Copilot

---

Which Glean alternatives are worth evaluating?

Eight alternatives have enough sourced pricing, ratings, or deployment data to profile in full, each leading on a different dimension: Microsoft Copilot on native M365 embedding, Onyx on open-source control, Guru on curated trust and review volume, Coveo on relevance-engineering depth, Moveworks on agentic action, Amazon Q Business on entry price, Elastic AI Search on developer flexibility, and Perplexity Enterprise on cited web-blended answers. Where each one sits in a broader AI agent tech stack varies by architecture, standalone search layer versus embedded productivity-suite assistant, which shapes the trade-offs below as much as feature lists do. Each is profiled below.

---

Alternative 1: Microsoft Copilot

Microsoft embeds 365 Copilot directly inside Outlook, Teams, Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, pricing it at roughly $30 per user per month as an add-on to an existing M365 subscription, a figure also confirmed on Microsoft’s own pricing pages, per a head-to-head comparison from Nexus (2026). It carries an active G2 review profile, though a single confirmed aggregate rating and review count were not independently verifiable at research time; check that page directly for the current figure. For a team whose knowledge already lives almost entirely inside SharePoint, Teams, and Outlook, Copilot answers questions from a corpus it already has deep, native access to, at roughly a third of Glean’s reported per-seat range.

The honest trade-off is scope: Copilot’s visibility narrows sharply outside Microsoft’s own ecosystem. Slack, Jira, Confluence, and other non-Microsoft tools are not natively indexed the way Glean’s 100-plus connectors cover them, so a team with knowledge spread across a heterogeneous stack gets a materially thinner picture from Copilot than from Glean.

Feature	Glean	Microsoft Copilot	Winner
Native M365 embedding	Connector-based, not native	Deeply native	Copilot
Connector breadth outside Microsoft	100+ connectors	Narrow outside M365	Glean
Published pricing	No public rate card	~$30/user/mo add-on	Copilot
Setup time for existing M365 tenants	Days to weeks	Hours to days	Copilot
G2 review volume	162 reviews, 4.7/5	Active profile, figure unconfirmed	N/A

Best for: teams whose knowledge already lives almost entirely inside Microsoft 365 and want the fastest path to production at the lowest published cost.

---

Alternative 2: Onyx

Onyx, formerly Danswer, is the clearest open-source alternative on this list: MIT-licensed, self-hostable, with 40-plus connectors and a genuinely free community edition, according to Onyx’s own comparison page (2026). A paid cloud tier starts at $20 per user per month on an annual plan for teams that want managed hosting without giving up the open-source core.

Choosing Onyx means accepting an engineering trade-off in exchange for cost and control: self-hosting requires infrastructure and maintenance effort a fully managed SaaS platform like Glean does not ask for. For teams with the engineering capacity to run it, that trade removes both Glean’s seat minimum and its opaque pricing in one move.

Feature	Glean	Onyx	Winner
License	Proprietary	MIT (open source)	Onyx
Self-hosting	No	Yes	Onyx
Seat minimum	~100 seats	None	Onyx
Managed cloud option	Yes	Yes ($20/user/mo)	Tie
Engineering effort to run	Low (fully managed)	Higher if self-hosted	Glean

Best for: teams with engineering capacity who want open-source control, no seat minimum, and the option to self-host for free.

---

Alternative 3: Guru

Guru holds the largest review base on this list, a 4.7-out-of-5 rating across 2,317 reviews on G2. Guru’s own pricing page gates its Business tier behind a sales call rather than publishing a rate; third-party software aggregators widely cite roughly $25 per user per month, but that figure is not confirmable on Guru’s own site, so treat it as a buyer-reported estimate rather than a published price. Its architecture leads with curation: Guru surfaces verified, human-approved answers ahead of raw search results, which matters for teams that have been burned by a plausible-sounding, wrong AI answer.

A curated-answer model only works as well as the curation behind it, though, so Guru requires more manual content maintenance than a pure-retrieval tool like Glean to reach its full potential.

Feature	Glean	Guru	Winner
Review volume (G2)	162	2,317	Guru
Curated/verified answers	Not the core model	Core model	Guru
Setup effort	Low (auto-indexing)	Higher (needs curation)	Glean
Pricing	No public rate	No public rate (buyer-reported ~$25/user/mo)	Tie (both opaque)
Connector breadth	100+	Fewer, curation-focused	Glean

Best for: teams that have been burned by confident, wrong AI answers and want verified content ahead of raw retrieval.

---

Alternative 4: Coveo

Coveo built its reputation in support and e-commerce search relevance, and holds a 4.3-out-of-5 rating across 142 G2 reviews. Its differentiator is ranking quality: Coveo’s machine-learning relevance models are purpose-built for the kind of high-volume, customer-facing search where a slightly better result order measurably changes conversion or resolution rates.

That relevance depth comes at real implementation cost. Coveo’s pricing is fully custom and enterprise-gated, and tuning its ranking models properly is a multi-week effort, longer than most of the tools on this list.

Feature	Glean	Coveo	Winner
Primary use case	General workplace search	Support/e-commerce relevance	Depends on use case
Relevance-tuning depth	Moderate	Deep, purpose-built	Coveo
Setup time	Days to weeks	Weeks	Glean
Pricing	No public rate	Custom, enterprise	Tie (both opaque)
G2 rating	4.7/5 (162)	4.3/5 (142)	Glean

Best for: teams whose primary need is customer-facing or support-search relevance, not general internal workplace search.

---

Alternative 5: Moveworks

Moveworks takes the most structurally different approach on this list: rather than returning an answer, it is built to resolve the underlying IT or HR request directly, holding a 4.4-out-of-5 rating across 125 G2 reviews. ServiceNow completed its acquisition of Moveworks in December 2025 and now also offers the same conversational-resolution technology as part of its own EmployeeWorks product, but Moveworks continues to be sold and supported as a standalone platform. Where every other tool here stops at “here’s what I found,” Moveworks can reset a password, provision access, or close a ticket as part of the same interaction.

That action-taking scope is narrower than Glean’s general-purpose search. Moveworks is purpose-built for IT and HR service-desk workflows specifically, not the broad, cross-department knowledge discovery Glean is built for.

Feature	Glean	Moveworks	Winner
Scope	General workplace search	IT/HR service-desk resolution	Depends on use case
Action-taking (not just retrieval)	Limited	Core capability	Moveworks
Cross-department breadth	Broad	Narrower, service-desk focused	Glean
Pricing	No public rate	Custom, enterprise	Tie (both opaque)
Setup time	Days to weeks	Weeks	Glean

Best for: IT and HR teams whose real goal is resolving a request, not just finding the document that explains it.

---

Alternative 6: Amazon Q Business

Among the fully managed alternatives on this list, Amazon Q Business has the lowest published entry price: $3 per user per month for the Lite tier and $20 per user per month for the Pro tier, per AWS’s own pricing page. Its G2 profile is active but still early, with a review count too small at research time to cite a stable aggregate rating. For a team already standardized on AWS, it reads and indexes AWS-native data sources with minimal new infrastructure.

The trade-off mirrors Copilot’s: Q Business is strongest inside its own ecosystem. Teams whose knowledge lives outside AWS get a thinner, less polished experience than Glean’s broader, platform-agnostic connector set.

Feature	Glean	Amazon Q Business	Winner
Entry pricing	No public rate	$3-$20/user/mo	Q Business
AWS-native integration	Connector-based	Native	Q Business
Platform-agnostic breadth	Broad	Narrower outside AWS	Glean
Polish/UX maturity	More established	Newer, less polished	Glean
G2 review volume	162 reviews, 4.7/5	Active profile, too new to cite an aggregate	Glean

Best for: AWS-heavy stacks that want the lowest published entry price among managed alternatives.

---

Alternative 7: Elastic AI Search

Elastic AI Search, built on the Elastic Stack, is the most developer-first option on this list, priced on usage rather than a flat per-seat rate. Elastic’s broader search product line, the closest confirmed figure available since Elastic does not break out a separate “AI Search” rating, holds 4.4 out of 5 across 525 reviews on G2. It gives engineering teams maximum control over indexing, ranking, and deployment, including a fully self-managed option outside of Elastic Cloud.

That flexibility is also the cost. Elastic AI Search requires meaningfully more in-house search expertise to configure well than a turnkey product like Glean, which trades some configurability for a faster out-of-the-box setup.

Feature	Glean	Elastic AI Search	Winner
Configurability	Turnkey, less flexible	Highly configurable	Elastic
Self-hosting	No	Yes	Elastic
In-house expertise required	Low	High	Glean
Pricing model	No public rate	Usage-based	Elastic (more transparent structure)
Setup time	Days to weeks	Days to weeks (expertise-dependent)	Tie

Best for: engineering-led teams that want maximum control over search infrastructure and are willing to configure it themselves.

---

Alternative 8: Perplexity Enterprise

Perplexity Enterprise blends internal document search with live, cited web results in a single interface, at $40 per seat per month on the Enterprise Pro tier, a figure published on Perplexity’s own enterprise pricing page. Perplexity’s general G2 profile, the closest confirmed figure available since Perplexity does not break out a separate Enterprise-tier rating, holds 4.4 out of 5 across 326 reviews on G2. Its differentiator is citation format: every answer carries a visible source link, internal or external, which is a meaningfully different trust model than a tool that only searches inside your own systems.

Perplexity Enterprise’s deep-indexing of nuanced internal app permissions is lighter than Glean’s, though, which matters more for organizations with intricate access-control requirements than for teams that mostly need a fast, well-cited answer.

Feature	Glean	Perplexity Enterprise	Winner
Live web blending	No	Yes	Perplexity
Internal permission depth	Deep	Lighter	Glean
Citation transparency	Standard	Every answer cited	Perplexity
Pricing	No public rate	~$40/user/mo	Perplexity
G2 review volume	162 reviews, 4.7/5	326 reviews, 4.4/5 (general profile)	Perplexity

Best for: teams that want internal knowledge blended with live, cited web results in the same query.

---

How does Glean compare to these alternatives overall?

Laid side by side, the eight alternatives split into three groups: native productivity-suite extensions (Microsoft Copilot, Amazon Q Business), open or developer-controlled platforms (Onyx, Elastic AI Search), and purpose-differentiated products (Guru’s curation, Moveworks’s action-taking, Perplexity Enterprise’s cited web blending, Coveo’s relevance depth).

Alternative	Strengths vs. Glean	Considerations	Best for
Microsoft Copilot	Native M365 embedding, lower published cost	Narrow outside Microsoft’s ecosystem	M365-heavy stacks
Onyx	Open source, no seat minimum, free tier	Requires engineering effort to self-host	Cost- or control-sensitive teams
Guru	Largest review base, curated trust	Needs ongoing content curation	Teams burned by wrong AI answers
Coveo	Deep relevance-tuning for support/e-commerce	Long setup, opaque enterprise pricing	Customer-facing search
Moveworks	Resolves the request, not just finds it	Narrower, service-desk-focused scope	IT/HR ticket resolution
Amazon Q Business	Lowest published entry price	Narrower outside AWS	AWS-native stacks
Elastic AI Search	Maximum configurability, self-hosting	Requires in-house search expertise	Engineering-led teams
Perplexity Enterprise	Cited, live-web-blended answers	Lighter internal permission depth	Blended internal/external search

Whichever of the eight you land on, the retrieval ceiling stays the same: metadata-enriched embeddings still only reach 55% Context@5 accuracy, so nearly half of what any of these tools surfaces is still an imperfect match without something underneath deciding what’s actually authoritative, the same data catalog-adjacent question every one of these vendors eventually runs into.

---

How do you choose between Glean and its alternatives?

Your decision should be driven by which specific gap is blocking you, price, connector breadth, self-hosting, or action-taking, rather than dissatisfaction with Glean alone.

Stay with Glean if:

• Your knowledge is genuinely spread across 5 or more disconnected systems, your LLM knowledge base is already fragmented across them, and you need the deepest connector library available.
• You can absorb an unpublished, sales-negotiated price and a 100-seat minimum.
• You value Glean’s larger established track record and its 4.7/5 G2 rating over a lower published cost.
• Native action-taking (resolving a ticket, not just finding it) is not a requirement.

Consider alternatives if:

• You’re already deep in Microsoft 365 and want native embedding at a lower published cost: Microsoft Copilot.
• You need open-source control with no seat minimum: Onyx.
• Verified, curated answers matter more than raw retrieval: Guru.
• You need the tool to resolve the request, not just surface a document: Moveworks.
• You’re AWS-native and want the lowest published entry price: Amazon Q Business.

By company profile

Startups and small teams (1-50 employees): Onyx’s free community edition removes both the seat minimum and the pricing-opacity problem in one move. Amazon Q Business is the next-cheapest managed option for AWS-native teams.

Mid-market (50-500 employees): Microsoft Copilot or Guru, depending on whether native M365 embedding or curated-answer trust matters more; both undercut Glean’s 100-seat floor in practical terms since neither forces the same minimum.

Enterprise (500+ employees): Glean, Coveo, and Moveworks are all realistic here; the deciding factor becomes which specific capability, connector breadth, relevance depth, or action-taking, matters most, not company size itself.

By use case

• General workplace knowledge discovery, heavy Microsoft footprint: Microsoft Copilot
• Cost- or control-sensitive, engineering capacity available: Onyx
• IT/HR service-desk resolution, not just search: Moveworks
• Customer-facing or e-commerce search relevance: Coveo
• Internal search blended with cited live web answers: Perplexity Enterprise

Every one of these choices still leaves the same open question: once the tool finds an answer, what decision trace shows whether that answer is current, permitted, and authoritative. That question is the subject of the next section.

---

Beyond search: when do you need governed context underneath Glean or any alternative?

None of the eight tools above competes with Atlan, which is why it doesn’t appear as a ninth alternative in the table. Glean’s own documentation lists Atlan among its supported remote MCP servers, the clearest available evidence that the two occupy different layers of the same stack rather than the same buying decision. Atlan’s Enterprise Data Graph adds certification, ownership, and sensitivity to the same assets any of these eight tools index, and mcp delivers that business context to Glean, and to any other MCP-compatible search or agent tool, at query time. That same governed layer is also what keeps a compromised or prompt-injected query from silently exposing data through a search interface that was never designed to check policy at answer time, and it’s the reason a genuine AI context platform sits a layer below any of the nine tools compared here, Atlan included. Why MCP matters for AI agents generally is worth a read before assuming any two MCP-connected tools do the same job.

The distinction that matters here: Glean, Copilot, Onyx, Guru, Coveo, Moveworks, Amazon Q Business, Elastic AI Search, and Perplexity Enterprise all answer “did I find something related.” None of the eight, on its own, answers whether that result is still current, whether the requester’s agent identity still grants access to it, or whether it’s the certified version of record rather than a stale duplicate, the exact gap already covered in enterprise search with AI and tested directly in context quality testing for AI agents. A 2026 arXiv study found metadata-enriched retrieval still only reaches 55% accuracy at best, which is the ceiling every search tool compared here shares no matter how good its interface is.

That ceiling is worth taking seriously precisely because Glean itself is reaching past it: customers and employees are already describing Glean in public as their “underlying context layer and AI Control Plane,” not just a search tool, a sign the market is starting to blur two categories that are still structurally different. Whichever of the eight alternatives you choose, that question doesn’t go away: what decides whether the tool’s answer is trustworthy, not just findable, is a separate layer from the interface you pick to ask the question, the same layer enterprise-ready AI agents depend on and the reason context engineering starts from governed retrieval rather than a clever prompt. Search that stops at retrieval alone returns noise instead of a certified answer at enterprise scale, and no amount of AI agent harness engineering on top of the interface fixes a context problem underneath it. For teams ready to build that layer rather than just pick a search tool, how to implement an enterprise context layer for AI is the practical next step, and what a context layer actually is is worth reading first if the term itself is still fuzzy.

---

Real stories from real customers: governed context reaching search tools

Neither quote is about Glean specifically; both are about the same shared-language, governed-context mechanism the MCP section above just described, applied here to the search use case.

---

Why the search tool you pick matters less than what feeds it accurate answers

Glean remains a genuinely strong choice: $300 million in ARR, a 4.7-out-of-5 G2 rating, and a leadership team that is itself arguing publicly that the real fight has moved to “the layer beneath the interface.” Nothing here argues otherwise, and none of the eight alternatives above is weak either; each wins clearly on the specific dimension it was built for. The decision to switch should be driven by pricing transparency, self-hosting need, action-taking scope, or ecosystem fit, not dissatisfaction alone.

What every one of these nine tools, Glean included, has in common is the question they answer: did I find something related to what was asked. None of them, on its own, answers whether that result is current, permitted, or the certified version of record, the layer Atlan sits underneath rather than competes inside. The search tool you pick decides how fast you get an answer. What feeds it governed context decides whether that answer is worth trusting.

---

FAQs about Glean alternatives

1. What is the best alternative to Glean for enterprise AI search?

The best alternative depends on why you are leaving Glean. Microsoft Copilot fits teams already standardized on Microsoft 365. Onyx fits teams that want open-source, self-hosted control. Guru fits teams that want curated, verified answers instead of raw retrieval. Moveworks fits teams that want the tool to resolve a ticket, not just find a document.

2. Is Glean open source?

No, Glean is a closed-source, commercially licensed platform with no public pricing and no self-hosted option. Onyx is the closest open-source equivalent, MIT-licensed and self-hostable, with a free community edition.

3. Does Microsoft Copilot replace Glean?

For teams whose knowledge lives almost entirely inside Microsoft 365, Copilot can replace most of what Glean does at roughly a third of the reported per-seat cost. For teams with knowledge spread across Slack, Jira, Confluence, and other non-Microsoft systems, Copilot’s visibility narrows sharply outside the Microsoft stack.

4. What is the most cost-effective alternative to Glean?

Onyx is the most cost-effective option with a genuinely free, self-hosted community edition and no seat minimum. Amazon Q Business has the lowest published entry price among the fully managed options, starting well under Glean’s reported per-seat range.

5. Is enterprise AI search the same as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)?

No. RAG is the underlying architecture, retrieving relevant chunks and feeding them to a language model to generate an answer. Enterprise AI search is the product experience built on top of RAG, plus connectors, permissions, and a chat or search interface. Every tool compared here uses some form of RAG under the hood.

6. How hard is it to switch from Glean to another enterprise search tool?

Connector re-setup is usually the fast part; every alternative here connects to the same core systems (Slack, Google Drive, Confluence, Jira). The slow part is rebuilding permission mappings and any curated Answers or verified-content workflows Glean users have accumulated, which typically takes several weeks for a mid-market team.

7. Can you self-host a Glean alternative?

Yes. Onyx is fully open-source and self-hostable under an MIT license with no paid tier required. Elastic AI Search can also run self-managed on Elastic’s own infrastructure stack for teams that want direct control over deployment.

8. Does Atlan compete with Glean?

No. Glean’s own documentation lists Atlan as a supported MCP server. Glean is the search and chat interface employees use; Atlan is the governed context layer that certifies whether what Glean retrieves is current, permitted, and authoritative.

---

Sources

1. Glean’s top line crosses $300M as AI budget cutting becomes its major selling point, TechCrunch, 2026
2. The enterprise AI land grab is on. Glean is building the layer beneath the interface, TechCrunch, 2026
3. Glean revenue, valuation & funding, Sacra, 2026
4. What Glean Actually Costs: A Full TCO Breakdown for Enterprise Buyers, GoSearch, 2026
5. Glean Pricing 2026: Plans, Costs, and What You Actually Pay, Workativ, 2026
6. Glean vs Microsoft Copilot: Enterprise Search vs AI Assistant, Nexus, 2026
7. Open-Source Glean Alternatives for Enterprise Search, Onyx, 2026
8. Top Glean Alternatives for AI-Powered Analytics, Domo, 2026
9. Best Enterprise AI Assistant in 2026: 8 Platforms Compared, Coworker AI, 2026
10. Supported remote MCP servers, Glean Documentation, 2026
11. Glean Technologies Products, G2, 2026
12. Guru Products, G2, 2026
13. Coveo Solutions Inc Products, G2, 2026
14. Moveworks G2 Reviews: What Users Really Say, Rezolve.ai, 2026
15. Utilizing Metadata for Better Retrieval-Augmented Generation, Yousuf et al., arXiv, 2026
16. Microsoft 365 Copilot Reviews, G2, 2026
17. Amazon Q Business Reviews, G2, 2026
18. Elastic Products, G2, 2026
19. Perplexity AI Products, G2, 2026
20. Amazon Q Business Pricing, AWS, 2026