Every category where a model named AWS ECR for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant	Since September 2026
Artifact and container registries	Developer platform	2%	15 of 89	0%	12	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for AWS ECR yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated AWS ECR across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	2	0	0	2
Mistral Small	1	1	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	2	2
Kimi K2	0	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1	2
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	0	1
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase7 labels2

Comparative6 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained7 labelsNone

Negative14 labels7not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative35 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 9 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Prefer enterprise-grade or cloud provider registries (ECR, ACR, GAR) for better security, compliance, and integration.” Mistral Small · Artifact registries · negative prompt · first choice

“I'd recommend starting with your primary cloud provider's managed container registry (e.g., AWS ECR if you're on AWS” Grok 4.1 Fast · Artifact registries · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Prefer private/managed registries: Use AWS ECR, Google Artifact Registry, Azure Container Registry (ACR)” Grok 4.1 Fast · Artifact registries · negative prompt · first choice

“Private registries: AWS ECR, Azure Container Registry, Google Artifact Registry” MiniMax M2.5 · Artifact registries · negative prompt · first choice

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as AWS ECR, over the 35 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AWS ECR was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Harbor29 of 351Not among the top eight

Google Artifact Registry28 of 351Not among the top eight

Azure Container Registry28 of 350Not among the top eight

JFrog Artifactory25 of 357Not among the top eight

GitHub Packages23 of 355Not among the top eight

Docker Hub21 of 350Not among the top eight

Sonatype Nexus Repository9 of 351Not among the top eight

Sonatype Lifecycle7 of 352Not among the top eight

GitLab Container Registry6 of 351Not among the top eight

Cloudsmith6 of 350Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named AWS ECR. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 30 of the 35 answers that named AWS ECR and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

ciopages.com15

blog.railway.com14

jfrog.com12

tech-insider.org11

g2.com10

harness.io10

paloaltonetworks.com9

cloudrepo.io8

daily.dev8

learn.microsoft.com8

105 of the 105 domain citations in answers naming AWS ECR came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

ciopages.com/buyer-guides/container-registry-artifact-management15

blog.railway.com/p/best-container-registries-202614

tech-insider.org/ecr-vs-acr-vs-artifact-registry-202610

ohmyops.dev/tools/container-registry-small-teams8

paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/container-registry-security8

guptadeepak.com/tools/top-8-container-registries-20266

harness.io/blog/best-artifact-repository-tools6

jfrog.com/artifactory6

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where AWS ECR stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 2,400 a month (“aws ecr”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 176 a month
Its own site: It sits on AWS's site (aws.amazon.com), so there are no site figures for it alone

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 15 of 89 in artifact registries

Segment leader

14%

JFrog Artifactory

First choices: 2 across its categories
Named in: 35 answers
Its own site cited: in 30 of the answers that named it

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.

Names read as AWS ECR

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as AWS ECR; a claim can dispute any of them.

AWS ECR/CodeArtifact 1

Follow AWS ECR

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

The company

AWS is the company behind AWS ECR.

ShowHide

On record

Company records

Also from AWS: AWS ACM, AWS ACM Private CA, AWS ALB, AWS ALB/ELB, AWS ALB/NLB, AWS API Gateway HTTP APIs, AWS Amazon Aurora, AWS App Runner and 87 more

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: a fully managed Docker container registry that makes it easy to store, share, and deploy container images
aws.amazon.com/ecr
Not stated on the pages read: Who it is for, price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers

What AWS ECR's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: aws.amazon.com/ecr. A claimed page can correct any of them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when AWS ECR's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as AWS ECR, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for AWS ECR by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where AWS ECR is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name AWS ECR, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.