Neeva and Privacy-Focused AI Search in AI Search Engines

Neeva was a pioneering privacy-focused AI search engine that operated as an ad-free, subscription-based alternative to traditional search platforms like Google, emphasizing user data protection by not tracking queries, browsing history, or selling personal information to advertisers ¹²³. Its primary purpose was to deliver personalized, accurate search results powered by large language models (LLMs) and proprietary search stacks while prioritizing privacy through zero data retention policies and multi-source answer synthesis with citations ⁴⁵⁶. In the broader field of AI search engines, Neeva mattered by challenging the ad-driven surveillance model, demonstrating viable alternatives via subscription revenue, and advancing generative AI integration for synthesized responses, though it ceased consumer operations in 2023 to pivot toward enterprise AI applications ³.

Overview

The emergence of privacy-focused AI search engines like Neeva represented a direct response to growing concerns about surveillance capitalism and data exploitation in traditional search platforms. Founded by former Google executives, Neeva launched with the explicit mission to break the connection between search functionality and advertising revenue, which had long incentivized extensive user tracking and behavioral profiling ³⁶. The fundamental challenge Neeva addressed was the inherent conflict between delivering relevant search results and protecting user privacy—a tension that conventional search engines resolved by prioritizing monetization through targeted advertising over user data protection ².

The practice of privacy-focused AI search evolved significantly during Neeva’s operational period from its founding through 2023. Initially, Neeva focused on delivering traditional search results without tracking, but rapidly integrated advanced AI capabilities through its NeevaAI engine, which synthesized information from multiple sources and provided cited answers to user queries ⁵⁶. This evolution reflected broader trends in the search industry toward generative AI integration, with Neeva pioneering the combination of privacy protection and AI-powered answer synthesis. Despite its innovations, Neeva ultimately struggled to achieve sustainable scale in the consumer market, leading to its shutdown in 2023 and subsequent acquisition by Snowflake for enterprise AI applications ³. This trajectory illustrated both the technical viability and commercial challenges of privacy-first search models in markets dominated by established players with fundamentally different business models.

Key Concepts

Zero-Knowledge Architecture

Zero-knowledge architecture in privacy-focused AI search refers to systems designed to process user queries in real-time without storing personal identifiers, search history, IP addresses, or any data that could be used to build user profiles ¹². This approach ensures that the search engine operates with no persistent knowledge of individual user behavior beyond the immediate query session.

Example: When a Neeva user searched for “symptoms of diabetes,” the query was processed through an anonymized session that generated results and AI-synthesized answers without logging the search terms, the user’s IP address, or any connection to previous searches. Once the results were delivered, all data associated with that specific query was immediately discarded, leaving no trace that could be accessed later—even if law enforcement presented a warrant for that user’s search history ²⁶.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)

Retrieval-Augmented Generation is an AI methodology that combines information retrieval from indexed sources with large language model generation to produce accurate, cited answers rather than purely generative responses ⁴⁵. This approach mitigates the hallucination problem common in standalone LLMs by grounding generated content in verifiable source material.

Example: When a user asked Neeva “What are the best practices for remote team management?”, the RAG system first retrieved relevant articles, blog posts, and research papers from its proprietary index. The LLM then synthesized information from these sources into a coherent answer, with each claim linked to specific sources: “Regular video check-ins improve team cohesion [Source: Harvard Business Review article], while asynchronous communication tools reduce meeting fatigue [Source: Remote Work Study 2022]” ⁵⁶. This allowed users to verify the accuracy of claims and explore source materials directly.

Ad-Free Monetization Model

The ad-free monetization model decouples search engine revenue from user surveillance by charging subscription fees rather than selling advertising space based on user profiling ³⁵. Neeva implemented this through a $4.95 monthly subscription that provided unlimited access to AI-powered search features without any advertisements or tracking.

Example: A Neeva subscriber searching for “best laptop for video editing” received organic search results ranked by relevance and quality, followed by an AI-synthesized comparison of top options with citations to professional reviews. Unlike Google’s results for the same query, which would include sponsored listings at the top and be influenced by the user’s browsing history for ad targeting purposes, Neeva’s results contained zero advertisements and were identical for all users with the same filter settings, regardless of their search history ¹⁶.

Connected Apps Integration

Connected apps integration enables federated search across multiple personal data sources—including email, cloud storage, calendars, and productivity tools—without centralizing or permanently storing that data on the search engine’s servers ¹⁶. This provides personalized results based on the user’s own information while maintaining privacy through permission-based, real-time access.

Example: A marketing professional connected their Google Workspace, Dropbox, and Notion accounts to Neeva. When they searched “Q4 campaign budget,” Neeva simultaneously queried their Gmail for relevant email threads, their Dropbox for spreadsheet files, and their Notion workspace for planning documents, presenting unified results from all sources. Critically, Neeva accessed these sources in real-time using OAuth permissions but never stored copies of the emails, files, or documents on its own servers ¹⁶.

Publisher Revenue Sharing

Publisher revenue sharing is a model where the search engine allocates a portion of its subscription revenue to content creators whose work is cited in search results and AI-generated answers ¹. Neeva committed 20% of its topline revenue to this program, creating a sustainable ecosystem that incentivized quality content creation.

Example: When Neeva’s AI synthesized an answer about climate change mitigation strategies that cited articles from Scientific American, The Guardian, and an independent climate research blog, each of these publishers received a proportional share of the 20% revenue pool based on how frequently their content was cited and clicked by users. A small independent blog that produced high-quality, frequently-cited content could earn meaningful revenue, creating an alternative to the ad-dependent model that dominates most online publishing ¹.

Ephemeral Query Processing

Ephemeral query processing ensures that all data associated with a search query—including the query text, results generated, and any temporary processing data—is immediately discarded after the search session ends, leaving no persistent records ². This contrasts sharply with traditional search engines that retain query logs indefinitely for personalization and analysis.

Example: A journalist researching a sensitive political topic submitted multiple queries to Neeva over several hours, including searches for “government surveillance programs,” “whistleblower protection laws,” and “encrypted communication tools.” Because Neeva employed ephemeral processing, each query was handled in isolation with no connection to previous searches, and all data was deleted immediately after results were delivered. Even Neeva’s own engineers could not reconstruct this search history, providing genuine protection for users researching sensitive topics ²⁶.

Hallucination Mitigation Through Source Verification

Hallucination mitigation refers to techniques that prevent AI systems from generating false or unsupported information by requiring all generated claims to be grounded in verifiable source material with explicit citations ⁵⁶. This distinguishes privacy-focused AI search from general-purpose chatbots that may generate plausible-sounding but inaccurate information.

Example: When asked “What is the population of Mars?”, an unconstrained LLM might generate a plausible-sounding but entirely fictional answer. Neeva’s system, however, would retrieve actual sources about Mars, recognize that no human population exists there, and generate an answer like “Mars currently has no permanent human population. As of 2023, only robotic missions operate on the surface [Source: NASA Mars Exploration Program].” If insufficient reliable sources existed to answer a query, Neeva would indicate this limitation rather than generating unsupported content ⁵⁶.

Applications in Search Contexts

Personal Productivity and Information Management

Privacy-focused AI search found significant application in personal productivity workflows where users needed to search across multiple information sources without creating centralized data repositories vulnerable to breaches or surveillance ¹⁶. Neeva’s connected apps functionality enabled professionals to maintain unified access to their distributed information while preserving privacy through federated, real-time queries rather than data aggregation.

A specific application involved knowledge workers who needed to locate information scattered across email, cloud storage, and collaboration platforms. A product manager preparing for a client meeting could search “Acme Corp requirements discussion” in Neeva, which would simultaneously query their Gmail for email threads, Google Drive for shared documents, Slack for conversation history, and Notion for meeting notes—all without creating a centralized index of this sensitive business information. The results appeared in a unified interface with clear source attribution, and no copies of the underlying data were retained by Neeva after the search session ended ¹⁶.

Research and Fact-Checking

Researchers and journalists utilized privacy-focused AI search for investigating sensitive topics where search history could pose professional or personal risks ⁵⁶. The combination of AI-synthesized answers with explicit source citations provided efficient information gathering while ephemeral processing protected the researcher’s privacy.

An investigative journalist researching corporate malfeasance could use Neeva to search for “XYZ Corporation environmental violations” and receive an AI-generated summary synthesizing information from regulatory filings, news reports, and court documents, with each claim linked to its source. The journalist could then explore these sources in depth without creating a persistent search history that could be subpoenaed or exposed in a data breach. The citation-heavy approach also facilitated verification of claims before publication, as each assertion in the AI-generated summary could be traced to its original source ⁵⁶.

Privacy-Conscious Consumer Research

Consumers concerned about targeted advertising and price discrimination used privacy-focused AI search for product research and purchasing decisions ⁶. The absence of tracking meant that searches for products didn’t trigger retargeting campaigns or influence future pricing through behavioral profiling.

A consumer shopping for health insurance could search “best health insurance plans for self-employed” in Neeva and receive organic results and AI-synthesized comparisons without those searches being logged and sold to insurance companies for targeted marketing. Unlike traditional search engines where such queries would trigger weeks of insurance advertisements across the web and potentially influence the prices quoted by insurers who purchase consumer data, Neeva’s zero-tracking approach ensured the research process itself didn’t compromise the user’s negotiating position or privacy ⁶.

Enterprise Knowledge Management

Following Neeva’s acquisition by Snowflake, the privacy-focused AI search technology found application in enterprise contexts where organizations needed to enable employees to search across vast data warehouses without creating privacy or compliance risks ³. This represented an evolution from consumer to business applications while maintaining core privacy principles.

A healthcare organization using Snowflake’s data platform could deploy Neeva’s technology to allow researchers to query patient data for clinical insights while maintaining HIPAA compliance through ephemeral processing and zero-retention policies. A researcher could ask “What are common comorbidities for patients with Type 2 diabetes?” and receive AI-synthesized answers drawn from millions of anonymized patient records, with the query and results processed in real-time and immediately discarded, leaving no audit trail that could potentially re-identify patients ³.

Best Practices

Implement Transparent No-Log Policies with Third-Party Verification

Privacy-focused AI search engines should establish clear, publicly documented policies specifying exactly what data is not collected, retained, or shared, and subject these policies to independent third-party audits ². The rationale is that privacy claims without verification are insufficient to build user trust, particularly given the history of privacy violations in the technology industry.

Implementation involves publishing detailed privacy policies that explicitly enumerate what is not done with user data, engaging reputable security firms to conduct regular audits of data handling practices, and publishing audit results publicly. Neeva documented its commitment to not logging search queries, IP addresses, or user identifiers, and while it faced some criticism regarding potential vulnerabilities in its use of third-party authentication, it maintained transparency about its practices and limitations ². Organizations implementing similar systems should go further by commissioning annual penetration testing and privacy audits from firms like the one that evaluated Neeva, publishing executive summaries of findings, and implementing bug bounty programs specifically focused on privacy vulnerabilities.

Balance AI Synthesis with Source Attribution

Privacy-focused AI search should provide synthesized answers for efficiency while maintaining rigorous source attribution to enable verification and prevent hallucinations ⁵⁶. The rationale is that AI-generated answers without citations can spread misinformation and undermine user trust, while pure link-based results sacrifice the efficiency gains that make AI search valuable.

Implementation requires configuring RAG systems to generate answers only when sufficient high-quality sources exist, citing sources at the claim level rather than just listing references at the end, and providing easy access to full source materials. Neeva implemented this by generating AI answers that included inline citations linking to specific sources, allowing users to verify each claim independently. For queries where insufficient reliable sources existed, the system would indicate this limitation rather than generating unsupported content ⁵⁶. Organizations should establish quality thresholds requiring minimum numbers of corroborating sources for factual claims, implement confidence scoring that reflects source quality and agreement, and design interfaces that make source verification effortless through one-click access to cited materials.

Design Subscription Models That Align Incentives with User Privacy

Privacy-focused search engines should adopt monetization strategies that create financial incentives to protect rather than exploit user data ³⁵. The rationale is that advertising-based models inherently incentivize surveillance and tracking, making genuine privacy protection economically irrational for the business.

Implementation involves establishing subscription tiers that provide value through enhanced features rather than through data exploitation, potentially offering freemium models with limited free access to reduce barriers to adoption, and transparently communicating how the business model protects privacy. Neeva charged $4.95 monthly for premium features including unlimited AI-powered answers, with the subscription revenue eliminating any incentive to track users for advertising purposes ³⁵. Organizations should consider hybrid approaches such as offering basic search free with limited AI features, premium subscriptions for unlimited AI synthesis and connected apps integration, and enterprise tiers for organizational deployment, ensuring that at no tier does the business model depend on selling user data or attention to third parties.

Establish Publisher Revenue Sharing to Sustain Content Ecosystems

Privacy-focused AI search engines that synthesize content from multiple sources should implement revenue sharing mechanisms that compensate content creators ¹. The rationale is that AI synthesis without compensation creates a parasitic relationship that undermines the content ecosystem, ultimately degrading the quality of information available to synthesize.

Implementation requires allocating a meaningful percentage of revenue to content creators, developing fair attribution systems that track which sources contribute to user value, and creating transparent processes for publishers to participate and receive payments. Neeva committed 20% of its topline revenue to publishers whose content was cited in search results and AI answers, with distribution based on citation frequency and user engagement ¹. Organizations should establish clear criteria for which content qualifies for revenue sharing, implement robust tracking systems that accurately attribute value to sources, create publisher portals where content creators can monitor their citations and earnings, and consider bonus payments for high-quality sources that consistently provide accurate, well-researched information that enhances AI-generated answers.

Implementation Considerations

Tool and Technology Stack Selection

Implementing privacy-focused AI search requires careful selection of technologies that support both powerful search capabilities and rigorous privacy protections ¹⁴. Organizations must balance performance requirements with privacy constraints, often necessitating custom development rather than relying on off-the-shelf solutions designed for tracking-based models.

For indexing and retrieval, technologies like Elasticsearch provide powerful full-text search capabilities that can be configured to operate without user tracking, though implementations must carefully disable telemetry and logging features that might compromise privacy. For AI synthesis, frameworks like LangChain facilitate RAG implementations that combine retrieval with LLM generation, but require careful configuration to ensure that queries and results aren’t logged by underlying LLM APIs. Privacy-focused implementations should consider self-hosted LLMs rather than API-based services to maintain complete control over data flows ⁴. Infrastructure choices should prioritize ephemeral computing resources that don’t persist data beyond immediate processing needs, potentially using serverless architectures where execution environments are created for each query and destroyed immediately after, leaving no residual data on disk or in memory.

Audience-Specific Customization and Use Cases

Different user populations have varying privacy needs and search requirements, necessitating customization of privacy-focused AI search implementations ⁵⁶. Consumer applications prioritize ease of use and broad coverage, while professional and enterprise applications may require specialized features for specific domains.

For general consumers, implementations should emphasize simplicity and familiar interfaces that don’t require technical expertise to use securely, with privacy protections operating transparently in the background. Neeva’s consumer interface resembled traditional search engines, making adoption easier for users accustomed to Google ⁶. For journalists and researchers investigating sensitive topics, implementations might add features like Tor integration for network-level anonymity, warrant canaries to signal legal demands for data, and enhanced source verification tools for fact-checking. For enterprise deployments, customization should address compliance requirements specific to the industry—healthcare implementations need HIPAA compliance, financial services need SOC 2 certification, and government applications may require FedRAMP authorization ³. Each context requires different balances between functionality and privacy protection, with higher-risk use cases justifying more stringent controls even at the cost of some convenience.

Organizational Maturity and Resource Requirements

Successfully implementing privacy-focused AI search requires significant organizational capabilities beyond just technical infrastructure ³. Organizations must assess their maturity in areas including AI/ML engineering, privacy and security practices, and business model innovation.

Technical maturity requirements include expertise in information retrieval systems, experience fine-tuning and deploying LLMs, and deep knowledge of privacy-enhancing technologies. Neeva’s founding team included former Google executives with extensive search engine experience, providing the expertise necessary to build a proprietary search stack ³. Organizations without this level of expertise should consider whether to build custom solutions or adapt existing privacy-focused search technologies. Business model maturity is equally critical—organizations must be prepared to operate without the data exhaust that typically funds free services, requiring either sustainable subscription revenue, enterprise contracts, or alternative funding sources. Neeva’s struggle to achieve consumer scale despite technical success illustrates that privacy-focused search requires not just technical excellence but also effective go-to-market strategies and sufficient capital to reach sustainable scale ³. Organizations should realistically assess whether they have the resources to compete in search markets dominated by entrenched players with massive advantages in scale and brand recognition.

Privacy-Utility Tradeoffs and User Expectations

Implementing privacy-focused AI search requires navigating inherent tradeoffs between privacy protection and search utility, particularly regarding personalization ²⁶. Organizations must clearly communicate these tradeoffs and set appropriate user expectations.

Traditional search engines achieve relevance partly through extensive personalization based on search history, location, browsing behavior, and demographic profiling. Privacy-focused alternatives sacrifice this personalization, potentially reducing relevance for some queries. Neeva addressed this through explicit filtering options—users could manually specify time ranges, geographic focus, or source types—providing personalization through user control rather than surveillance ¹⁶. However, this approach requires more active user engagement compared to passive personalization. Organizations implementing privacy-focused search should design interfaces that make explicit filtering intuitive and efficient, provide clear explanations of how privacy protections affect results, and consider offering optional, user-controlled personalization where users can explicitly choose to enable certain tracking features with full transparency about the implications. The key is ensuring users understand that reduced tracking is a feature, not a limitation, and providing alternative mechanisms for achieving relevant results without compromising privacy.

Common Challenges and Solutions

Challenge: Achieving Sustainable Scale in Consumer Markets

Privacy-focused AI search engines face severe challenges achieving the user scale necessary for financial sustainability when competing against free, ad-supported alternatives with massive brand recognition and distribution advantages ³. Neeva’s shutdown in 2023 despite technical innovation and positive user reviews illustrated that privacy benefits alone may be insufficient to overcome the convenience and zero monetary cost of established search engines. The challenge is compounded by network effects—dominant search engines improve through scale, making it progressively harder for alternatives to compete on result quality.

Solution:

Organizations should consider hybrid go-to-market strategies that combine consumer and enterprise channels rather than relying solely on direct-to-consumer subscription models. Following its consumer shutdown, Neeva’s acquisition by Snowflake enabled its technology to reach users through enterprise deployments where privacy and compliance requirements create stronger value propositions than in consumer markets ³. Alternative approaches include partnering with privacy-focused browsers or operating systems to provide default search options, targeting specific high-value niches where privacy concerns are particularly acute (such as healthcare professionals, journalists, or legal practitioners), and implementing freemium models with generous free tiers to reduce adoption friction while monetizing power users. Organizations should also consider that privacy-focused search may be more viable as a feature within broader privacy-focused ecosystems rather than as a standalone product, potentially integrating with VPN services, secure email providers, or privacy-focused browsers to create comprehensive privacy solutions.

Challenge: Balancing Privacy with Legal Compliance Requirements

Privacy-focused search engines must navigate complex legal requirements that may conflict with privacy commitments, particularly regarding law enforcement requests for user data and mandatory data retention in certain jurisdictions ². While zero-retention policies provide strong privacy protections, they may create legal vulnerabilities if courts interpret non-retention as obstruction. Additionally, operating globally requires compliance with varying privacy regulations, some of which mandate certain data retention or access provisions.

Solution:

Organizations should implement privacy-by-design architectures that make it technically impossible to provide data that isn’t collected, while maintaining transparency about legal limitations. Neeva’s approach of not logging queries meant that even if served with a warrant, it couldn’t provide search history that didn’t exist ². However, organizations should clearly document what data could theoretically be provided under legal compulsion (such as account registration information or payment records) versus what genuinely doesn’t exist. Implementing warrant canaries—public statements that are removed if secret legal demands are received—provides transparency about legal pressures without violating gag orders. For global operations, organizations should consider data localization strategies where user data is processed in jurisdictions with strong privacy protections, potentially operating separate infrastructure in different regions to comply with local requirements while maximizing privacy protections. Legal teams should proactively engage with privacy regulators to ensure compliance approaches are acceptable, and technical architectures should be designed with legal review to ensure privacy protections are legally defensible rather than creating liability.

Challenge: Mitigating AI Hallucinations While Maintaining Response Quality

AI-powered search engines face the critical challenge of preventing hallucinations—the generation of plausible-sounding but factually incorrect information—while still providing the synthesized, natural language answers that make AI search valuable ⁵⁶. Pure LLM generation without grounding in retrieved sources can produce confident-sounding misinformation, while overly conservative approaches that only return traditional search results sacrifice the efficiency benefits of AI synthesis.

Solution:

Implement rigorous RAG architectures that require all generated claims to be grounded in retrieved source material with explicit citations, and establish quality thresholds that prevent answer generation when insufficient reliable sources exist. Neeva’s approach combined retrieval from its proprietary index with LLM synthesis, ensuring that generated answers cited specific sources for each claim ⁵⁶. Organizations should implement multi-stage verification processes: first, retrieve candidate sources and assess their quality and reliability; second, generate synthesized answers only from these verified sources; third, implement citation at the claim level rather than just listing sources at the end; and fourth, provide confidence scores that reflect source agreement and quality. For controversial or rapidly-evolving topics, systems should indicate uncertainty and present multiple perspectives rather than synthesizing a single answer. Technical implementations should include fact-checking layers that compare generated claims against retrieved sources to detect unsupported assertions, and user interfaces should make source verification effortless through one-click access to cited materials, enabling users to independently verify claims rather than trusting AI synthesis blindly.

Challenge: Managing Connected Apps Integration Without Compromising Privacy

Enabling search across personal email, documents, and productivity tools provides significant value but creates privacy risks if not implemented carefully ¹⁶. Centralizing copies of user data from multiple sources creates attractive targets for breaches, while real-time federated queries may expose data to the search provider even if not permanently stored. Additionally, integration with third-party services that themselves track users (like Google Workspace) may create indirect privacy compromises.

Solution:

Implement federated search architectures that query connected apps in real-time using OAuth permissions without creating centralized copies of user data, and ensure that query results are processed ephemerally without retention. Neeva’s connected apps functionality accessed Gmail, Google Drive, Dropbox, and other services through API calls made on behalf of the user, with results integrated into search output but not stored on Neeva’s servers ¹⁶. Organizations should implement several protective measures: use OAuth tokens with minimal necessary scopes, limiting access to only what’s required for search functionality; process connected app results in isolated, ephemeral execution environments that are destroyed after each query; implement client-side filtering where possible, with sensitive processing occurring in the user’s browser rather than on servers; and provide granular user controls allowing users to specify which apps are queried for which types of searches. Technical architectures should ensure that even if the search provider’s infrastructure is compromised, connected app data isn’t accessible because it’s never stored. Organizations should also clearly communicate the privacy implications of connecting third-party apps, acknowledging that while the search provider may not track users, the connected services themselves (like Google) continue their own tracking practices.

Challenge: Competing on Result Quality Without Behavioral Data

Traditional search engines achieve high relevance partly through extensive personalization based on user behavior, search history, and demographic profiling ²⁶. Privacy-focused alternatives that don’t collect this data face challenges matching the perceived relevance of personalized results, particularly for ambiguous queries where context from user history would help disambiguate intent.

Solution:

Develop alternative personalization mechanisms based on explicit user control rather than implicit tracking, and invest in superior core ranking algorithms that achieve relevance through better understanding of query intent and content quality rather than through user profiling. Neeva implemented explicit filtering options allowing users to manually specify time ranges, geographic focus, source types, and other parameters that traditional search engines would infer from tracking data ¹⁶. Organizations should design interfaces that make explicit personalization intuitive through features like saved search preferences, customizable result categories, and query refinement suggestions based on the current query rather than history. Invest in advanced natural language understanding to better interpret query intent without requiring historical context, and develop superior content quality signals that identify authoritative sources through factors like citation networks, author expertise, and content freshness rather than through click-through rates influenced by personalized ranking. Consider optional, transparent personalization where users can explicitly choose to enable certain tracking features with full understanding of implications, providing a middle ground between zero tracking and comprehensive surveillance. The key is demonstrating that privacy-focused search can achieve comparable or superior relevance through better technology rather than more invasive data collection.

See Also

• Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in Search Systems

References

1. Sunarc Technologies. (2023). How is Neeva AI Revolutionizing the World of Digital Search. https://sunarctechnologies.com/blog/how-is-neeva-ai-revolutionizing-the-world-of-digital-search/
2. Packet Labs. (2023). Is Neeva Really a Secure Search Engine. https://www.packetlabs.net/posts/is-neeva-really-a-secure-search-engine/
3. Coywolf. (2023). Neeva Shuts Down Search Engine Focus on AI Business. https://coywolf.com/news/seo/neeva-shuts-down-search-engine-focus-on-ai-business/
4. Tool Central. (2023). Neeva AI Tools. https://www.toolcentral.ai/ai-tools/neeva-2
5. Off The Grid XP. (2023). What is Neeva AI. https://offthegridxp.substack.com/p/what-is-neeva-ai
6. Atomic Object. (2023). Neeva Search. https://spin.atomicobject.com/neeva-search/
7. WebmasterWorld. (2023). Alternative Search Engines Discussion. https://www.webmasterworld.com/alternative_search_engines/5077458.htm