Why did Google and Naver grow differently? Comparison of search results display methods and fairness

The two search services we use every day, Google and Naver, started around the same time. However, 10 years later, one side became number one in the world and the other side remained a domestic powerhouse. The data compares the difference based on the criteria of wealth and fairness. Let's summarize how the way search results are displayed has influenced the direction of growth.

How similar were the starting lines?

Google was founded in 1998, and Naver was established independently from a large company's in-house venture in 1999. Around 2000, the two companies had about 1,000 servers and had similar influence.

The timing of overseas expansion was similar, with Naver entering Japan in 2001 and Google entering Japan in 2002. However, by 2013, Japan's search share had increased significantly to 1% for Naver and 43% for Google.

What did Google focus on?

Portals are originally gateways to other sites. Even though Google was criticized for not staying for long, it remained faithful to its original role of quickly sending users to desired external sites.

Google's sorting started from the principle of PageRank. Pages with a lot of links from other web pages are considered more trustworthy and are given higher scores, so they are relatively free from disputes about fairness.

제출 전에 문단 첫 문장만 이어 읽어 보면 흐름이 맞는지 금방 보이더라고요. 띄어쓰기가 헷갈리는 단어는 국어사전에서 한 번 확인해 보는 것도 좋을 것 같아요.

What path did Naver take?

For profit, Naver focused more on securing its own content than on developing a search engine. We used services such as Knowledge iN to collect user-generated answers and prevent this data from being exposed to external search engines.

I believe that the method of showing copied content first rather than the original has reduced search competitiveness in the long run. The repeated controversy over manipulation of the rankings of search terms of great social interest is also pointed out as an issue of fairness.

Is fairness really worth money?

The author says that the results of entering Japan show that the differences between the two companies are not just due to the market environment. The interpretation is that the side that showed fair results gained the trust of the wider market.

Examples from other industries are also introduced. Examples include a restaurant company that gained the trust of franchise owners through a simple and fair contract that only charges a franchise fee, and a domestic company that competed head-on despite the emergence of strong competitors and became the world's No. 1 mobile phone manufacturer.

To summarize as a comparison task

If you collect the year of establishment, overseas expansion, market share, strategy, and global ranking in one table, you can see the differences between the two companies at a glance. The logic becomes clearer if you explain the cause by dividing it into the search result provision method and the sorting algorithm.

Fairness may reduce immediate profits, but the data concludes that it increases competitiveness in the long run by building trust between users and trading partners. He adds that this principle has more practical meaning now that global companies are entering the domestic market.

However, the search market share changes every year, and Naver has also attempted several changes since then to improve search quality. When writing in your assignment, please add opposing opinions along with the latest statistics to ensure balance.

This article was reviewed and compiled by the Campus Down editorial department on October 22, 2026, based on data from the Internet company comparison assignment. Detailed standards may vary depending on the time.