IT AI Index
Index › Vendors › CloudForge · September 2026 Edition
1 category · Named, not ranked

CloudForge

2Judge labels
0First choices
1Negative labels
2 of 12Models named it
1Category
September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
1 label, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. CloudForge was named 1 time in Source control, where GitHub led with 74%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business15 of 24
0%1 label
under the label threshold
Mid-market13 of 23
0%1 label
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
In source control · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named CloudForge 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrant
Source control hostingDeveloper platform0%13 of 230%1under 10 labels · led by GitHub at 74%

Movement

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

By model

How each model treated CloudForge across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.500000
GPT-5.4 mini00000
Gemini 3.5 Flash00000
Perplexity Sonar00000
Grok 4.1 Fast00000
Mistral Small00000
DeepSeek V4 Flash00000
Llama 4 Maverick01001
Qwen 3.7 Flash00000
Kimi K200000
GLM 4.7 FlashX00000
MiniMax M2.500000

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
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative0 labelsNone
Budget-constrained1 labelNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative1 labelNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative2 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“other alternatives such as Bitbucket, CloudForge, and GitLab” Llama 4 Maverick · Source control · budget prompt · alternative

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 CloudForge, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CloudForge was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
GitHub2 of 21Not in the top three
Bitbucket2 of 20Not in the top three
GitLab2 of 20Not in the top three
AWS CodeCommit1 of 20Not in the top three
Assembla1 of 20Not in the top three
Gitea1 of 20Not in the top three
Gogs1 of 20Not in the top three
SourceForge1 of 20Not in the top three
A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. 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 CloudForge. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 2 of the 2 answers that named CloudForge and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

g2.com2
about.gitlab.com1
blog.idrsolutions.com1
blog.reviewaitool.com1
cloudrepo.io1
dev.to1
devopsschool.org1
en.wikipedia.org1
encryptionconsulting.com1
github.alternative.to1

Eleven of the eleven domain citations in answers naming CloudForge came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

g2.com/categories/version-control-hosting/free2
about.gitlab.com/blog/git-repository-pricing1
blog.idrsolutions.com/top-5-free-hosted-version-control-sites-compared1
blog.reviewaitool.com/2026/08/27/best-source-code-hosting-and-devops-github-20261
cloudrepo.io/articles/best-private-maven-repository-small-teams1
dev.to/gwutama/where-do-you-host-your-code-cloud-vs-on-premise-git-services-48g61
devopsschool.org/tools/source-code-management1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_source-code-hosting_facilities1

Pages are listed as the models cited 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 CloudForge'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 CloudForge, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at cloud.nl is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.

Subscribe to the pack