MyLens vs vectra
Side-by-side comparison to help you choose.
| Feature | MyLens | vectra |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Product | Repository |
| UnfragileRank | 32/100 | 38/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 0 |
| Quality | 1 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 1 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 12 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Renders historical events as an interactive, multi-dimensional graph where nodes represent events and edges represent causal/temporal relationships. The system likely uses a force-directed layout algorithm (e.g., D3.js or similar) to position events in 2D/3D space based on temporal distance and relationship strength, allowing users to pan, zoom, and filter by time period, theme, or actor. Events can be clustered hierarchically (by century, decade, or custom periods) and relationships are rendered as directional edges with semantic labels.
Unique: Specializes in temporal graph visualization with semantic relationship labeling, whereas general tools like Airtable and Notion treat timelines as linear lists or Gantt charts; likely uses domain-specific layout heuristics to prioritize temporal ordering over pure force-directed aesthetics
vs alternatives: Outperforms Airtable timelines and Notion databases for visualizing non-linear causal relationships because it renders relationships as explicit edges rather than requiring manual cross-linking or nested views
Allows users to define and visualize semantic relationships between events (causality, influence, opposition, simultaneity) beyond simple chronological ordering. The system likely maintains a relationship graph where each edge has a type (e.g., 'caused', 'influenced', 'opposed', 'concurrent') and optional metadata (confidence, source citation). Relationships are bidirectional and can be queried to trace causal chains or identify thematic clusters. The UI probably provides a relationship picker or natural-language input that maps user intent to structured relationship types.
Unique: Treats relationships as first-class semantic objects with types and metadata, rather than implicit connections; enables querying and reasoning over relationship graphs to answer questions like 'what events led to the French Revolution?'
vs alternatives: Exceeds Notion's relation properties and Airtable's linked records because it explicitly models relationship semantics (causality vs influence vs opposition) rather than generic 'linked to' connections
Uses natural language processing or AI to automatically extract events and dates from unstructured text (e.g., historical documents, Wikipedia articles, research papers). The system likely accepts text input or document uploads, parses the text to identify event mentions and temporal expressions, and suggests event entries with extracted dates, actors, and descriptions. Users can review and edit extracted events before adding them to the timeline. The system may also attempt to resolve ambiguous dates or fill in missing information based on historical knowledge.
Unique: Automates event extraction from unstructured historical text using NLP/AI, reducing manual data entry time from hours to minutes for large documents
vs alternatives: Faster than manual entry in Airtable or Notion because it automatically identifies and extracts events from text, though accuracy likely requires human review
Allows users to publish timelines publicly and discover timelines created by other users. The system likely maintains a public gallery or search interface where users can browse timelines by topic, time period, or creator. Published timelines can be viewed without requiring a user account (read-only access). The system probably supports social features like ratings, comments, or follows. Users can control sharing permissions (public, private, or shared with specific users) and track views/engagement metrics.
Unique: Enables community-driven timeline discovery and reuse, creating a shared knowledge base of historical timelines that researchers can build upon
vs alternatives: Exceeds Airtable and Notion's sharing capabilities because it provides a dedicated discovery interface for finding and reusing timelines, not just sharing links
Allows users to create alternative timeline branches that explore 'what if' scenarios or counterfactual histories. The system likely maintains a base timeline and allows users to create branches that diverge at a specific point, with alternative events and outcomes. Users can compare branches to see how different choices or events would have led to different historical outcomes. The visualization probably shows branching points clearly and allows toggling between branches. This feature is useful for teaching causation and exploring historical contingency.
Unique: Enables explicit counterfactual reasoning by allowing users to create and compare alternative timelines, making historical contingency and causation tangible
vs alternatives: Unique capability not found in Airtable or Notion; enables teaching and exploring 'what if' scenarios in a structured, visual format
Provides multi-dimensional filtering of events by time period, geographic region, actor/person, theme/category, and custom tags. The system likely implements faceted search with aggregated counts (e.g., '15 events in 1789', '8 events involving Napoleon') and allows users to combine filters with AND/OR logic. Filtering is applied client-side or via server-side query optimization to update the visualization in real-time, highlighting matching events and dimming non-matching ones. Time-range sliders enable quick navigation across centuries or decades.
Unique: Combines temporal range filtering with semantic facets (actor, theme, region), enabling researchers to answer complex questions like 'all revolutions in Europe 1750-1850 involving peasant movements' in a single query
vs alternatives: Outperforms Airtable filters and Notion database views because it provides temporal range sliders and real-time facet aggregation, making it faster to explore large historical datasets
Enables multiple users to contribute events, relationships, and annotations to a shared timeline with version control and attribution. The system likely tracks who added/edited each event (with timestamps), allows comments or discussion threads on events, and may support approval workflows for academic rigor. Concurrent edits are probably handled via operational transformation or CRDT (conflict-free replicated data types) to avoid merge conflicts. Users can see real-time presence indicators and edit notifications.
Unique: Integrates real-time collaborative editing with academic attribution and version history, whereas Airtable and Notion treat collaboration as a secondary feature without explicit provenance tracking
vs alternatives: Provides better scholarly collaboration than Google Docs or Airtable because it tracks attribution per event and maintains relationship integrity across concurrent edits
Provides pre-built timeline templates for common historical narratives (e.g., 'American Revolution', 'Industrial Revolution', 'Ancient Rome') that users can instantiate and customize. Templates likely include pre-populated events, relationships, and metadata that serve as a starting point. The system probably supports importing timelines from CSV/JSON files or from public template repositories, with conflict resolution for duplicate events. Users can also save their own timelines as templates for reuse.
Unique: Provides domain-specific historical timeline templates rather than generic project templates, reducing setup time for researchers entering a new historical period
vs alternatives: Faster than starting from scratch in Airtable or Notion because templates include pre-researched events and relationships specific to historical narratives
+5 more capabilities
Stores vector embeddings and metadata in JSON files on disk while maintaining an in-memory index for fast similarity search. Uses a hybrid architecture where the file system serves as the persistent store and RAM holds the active search index, enabling both durability and performance without requiring a separate database server. Supports automatic index persistence and reload cycles.
Unique: Combines file-backed persistence with in-memory indexing, avoiding the complexity of running a separate database service while maintaining reasonable performance for small-to-medium datasets. Uses JSON serialization for human-readable storage and easy debugging.
vs alternatives: Lighter weight than Pinecone or Weaviate for local development, but trades scalability and concurrent access for simplicity and zero infrastructure overhead.
Implements vector similarity search using cosine distance calculation on normalized embeddings, with support for alternative distance metrics. Performs brute-force similarity computation across all indexed vectors, returning results ranked by distance score. Includes configurable thresholds to filter results below a minimum similarity threshold.
Unique: Implements pure cosine similarity without approximation layers, making it deterministic and debuggable but trading performance for correctness. Suitable for datasets where exact results matter more than speed.
vs alternatives: More transparent and easier to debug than approximate methods like HNSW, but significantly slower for large-scale retrieval compared to Pinecone or Milvus.
Accepts vectors of configurable dimensionality and automatically normalizes them for cosine similarity computation. Validates that all vectors have consistent dimensions and rejects mismatched vectors. Supports both pre-normalized and unnormalized input, with automatic L2 normalization applied during insertion.
vectra scores higher at 38/100 vs MyLens at 32/100. MyLens leads on quality, while vectra is stronger on adoption and ecosystem.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Unique: Automatically normalizes vectors during insertion, eliminating the need for users to handle normalization manually. Validates dimensionality consistency.
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than requiring manual normalization, but adds latency compared to accepting pre-normalized vectors.
Exports the entire vector database (embeddings, metadata, index) to standard formats (JSON, CSV) for backup, analysis, or migration. Imports vectors from external sources in multiple formats. Supports format conversion between JSON, CSV, and other serialization formats without losing data.
Unique: Supports multiple export/import formats (JSON, CSV) with automatic format detection, enabling interoperability with other tools and databases. No proprietary format lock-in.
vs alternatives: More portable than database-specific export formats, but less efficient than binary dumps. Suitable for small-to-medium datasets.
Implements BM25 (Okapi BM25) lexical search algorithm for keyword-based retrieval, then combines BM25 scores with vector similarity scores using configurable weighting to produce hybrid rankings. Tokenizes text fields during indexing and performs term frequency analysis at query time. Allows tuning the balance between semantic and lexical relevance.
Unique: Combines BM25 and vector similarity in a single ranking framework with configurable weighting, avoiding the need for separate lexical and semantic search pipelines. Implements BM25 from scratch rather than wrapping an external library.
vs alternatives: Simpler than Elasticsearch for hybrid search but lacks advanced features like phrase queries, stemming, and distributed indexing. Better integrated with vector search than bolting BM25 onto a pure vector database.
Supports filtering search results using a Pinecone-compatible query syntax that allows boolean combinations of metadata predicates (equality, comparison, range, set membership). Evaluates filter expressions against metadata objects during search, returning only vectors that satisfy the filter constraints. Supports nested metadata structures and multiple filter operators.
Unique: Implements Pinecone's filter syntax natively without requiring a separate query language parser, enabling drop-in compatibility for applications already using Pinecone. Filters are evaluated in-memory against metadata objects.
vs alternatives: More compatible with Pinecone workflows than generic vector databases, but lacks the performance optimizations of Pinecone's server-side filtering and index-accelerated predicates.
Integrates with multiple embedding providers (OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, local transformer models via Transformers.js) to generate vector embeddings from text. Abstracts provider differences behind a unified interface, allowing users to swap providers without changing application code. Handles API authentication, rate limiting, and batch processing for efficiency.
Unique: Provides a unified embedding interface supporting both cloud APIs and local transformer models, allowing users to choose between cost/privacy trade-offs without code changes. Uses Transformers.js for browser-compatible local embeddings.
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-provider solutions like LangChain's OpenAI embeddings, but less comprehensive than full embedding orchestration platforms. Local embedding support is unique for a lightweight vector database.
Runs entirely in the browser using IndexedDB for persistent storage, enabling client-side vector search without a backend server. Synchronizes in-memory index with IndexedDB on updates, allowing offline search and reducing server load. Supports the same API as the Node.js version for code reuse across environments.
Unique: Provides a unified API across Node.js and browser environments using IndexedDB for persistence, enabling code sharing and offline-first architectures. Avoids the complexity of syncing client-side and server-side indices.
vs alternatives: Simpler than building separate client and server vector search implementations, but limited by browser storage quotas and IndexedDB performance compared to server-side databases.
+4 more capabilities