(Last updated Nov. 18, 2025)
|
Database |
Google Scholar |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total records |
95+ million |
90.6+ million |
399 million4 |
147+ million |
|
Journals |
>22,619+ total |
27,950 active titles |
Unknown |
77,471 5 |
|
Preprints |
Yes - via Preprint Citation Index |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
|
Books |
157,000+ |
292,000; 1,167 book series |
Number unknown, but is integrated with Google Books |
|
|
Proceedings |
10.5 million |
11.7+ million conf papers |
Unknown |
8.8 million |
|
Period Covered |
1945-present; if Century of Science purchased, coverage goes back to1900 |
Records go back to 1788; cited refs for 1970 to present |
Unknown |
1665-present |
|
Non-English publications |
Yes, if has an English abstract; 4% of the publications are non-English (excluding ESCI) |
Yes, if has an English abstract; 20% of publications are non-English |
Articles published in many languages |
|
|
Update frequency |
Daily |
Daily |
Unknown |
Daily (ca. 2-3 days after deposit in CrossRef) |
|
Author Profiles |
Algorithm generated |
Algorithm generated |
Author created |
Algorithm generated |
|
Citation Analysis |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
|
Mark Records |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes – requires Google Account login |
Yes – requires registering to use this feature |
|
Export Records |
Yes - en masse |
Yes - en masse |
If logged in; mass export saved records in user library |
Yes – requires registering to use this feature |
|
Systematic Reviews |
Yes |
Yes |
Limited advanced searching features |
Complex Boolean searches for systematic reviews require using their API15 |
|
Strengths |
|
|
|
|
|
Weaknesses |
|
|
|
|
Due to major changes in content coverage changes for these databases post-2015, and the launching of Dimensions in 2018, data from older research studies is outdated and has been replaced/updated in this chart. All database providers (with the exception of Google Scholar which is a black box) have been very responsive to identified weaknesses and have made improvements to eliminate some of them.
[1] Some data in this column is from Resources for Librarians and Administrators, March 2025. Where possible, the comparison chart above has included information on which Web of Science data points include or exclude Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
[2] Some data in this column is from Scopus Content Coverage Guide, March 2023.
[3] Dimensions. Why Dimensions?, June 2024. [Scroll down the page to see this section. Written by Dimensions staff, this webpage provides a content comparison with Dimensions, Scopus, Web of Science, and Open Alex – with notes at the bottom about data sources used.] Note that Dimensions does not: define what “publications” covers; give a category for “number of journals”; say whether Web of Science numbers are just the Core Collection or also include ESCI.
[4] Aguillo, Isidro F. 2025.Transparent Ranking of Repositories 2025. figshare. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29099234.v2
[5] Singh, Vivek Kumar, Prashasti Singh, Mousumi Karmakar, et al. 2021. "The Journal Coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis.” Scientometrics,126(6): 5113-5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5. On page 5117 they state that “Dimensions contains more than 74,000 journal entries”; however, 3 other places in the article state the Dimensions journal list “contained 77,471 entries.” Per email communication with Dimensions staff on 8/14/25, "Dimensions contains more publication sources than just journals, including book series, preprint platforms, and conference proceedings. There are about 115k sources with online ISSNs."
[6] Singh, "Journal Coverage," 5123.
[7] Visser, Martijn, Nees Jan van Eck, and Waltman, Ludo. 2021. "Large-scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic." Quantitative Science Studies 2 (1): 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112. [Note: this study did not include Emerging Sources Index.] See p.33 for non-English data.
[8] Singh, "Journal Coverage," 5133-5134.
[9] Martín‑Martín, Alberto, Mike Thelwall, Enrique Orduna-Malea, et al. 2021. "Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations." Scientometrics, 126:871-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4. [Google Scholar found 88% of all citations, followed by Microsoft Academic (which is now defunct), Scopus, Dimensions, then Web of Science. This study used the Web of Science Core Collection which included Emerging Sources Citation Index.]
[10] Singh, "Journal Coverage," 5133-5134.
[11] Franceschini, Fiorenzo, Domenico Maisano and Luca Mastrogiacomo. 2016. “Empirical Analysis and Classification of Database Errors in Scopus and Web of Science.” Journal of Infometrics, 10(4):933-953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.07.003
[12] Franceschini, Fiorenzo, Domenico Maisano and Luca Mastrogiacomo. 2016. “The Museum of Errors/Horrors in Scopus.” Journal of Infometrics, 10(1):174-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.006
[13] Visser, "Large-Scale Comparison," 37.
[14] Basson, Isabel, Marc-André Simard, Zoé Aubierge Ouangré, et al. 2022. “The Effect of Data Sources on the Measurement of Open Access: A comparison of Dimensions and the Web of Science.” PLOS One, 17(3): e0265545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265545. [Note: it compares only the open access article coverage in these databases.]
[15] Gusenbauer, Michael and Neal R. Haddaway. 2020. "Which Academic Search Systems are Suitable for Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 Other Resources." Research Synthesis Methods, 11:181-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378.
