GitLab Container Registry
Standing by category
| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artifact and container registries | Developer platform | 0% | 25 of 89 | 0% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by JFrog Artifactory at 14% |
Movement
By model
How each model treated GitLab Container Registry across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
By framing
What the models said for it
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Private registries | Harbor, GitLab Container Registry, cloud-native (ECR, GCR, ACR) with strict access controls” Kimi K2 · Artifact registries · negative prompt · alternative
“For cloud-native teams: GitHub Packages or GitLab Container Registry.” Mistral Small · Artifact registries · scale prompt · alternative
“Integrated with GitLab CI/CD, same repo UI, good for Git‑centric teams” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Artifact registries · comparative prompt · alternative
“Drawback: Vendor lock-in makes switching providers difficult later.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Artifact registries · paraphrase 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.
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as GitLab Container Registry, over the 21 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and GitLab Container Registry was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
What carried it into the answer
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 16 of the 21 answers that named GitLab Container Registry and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
Sixty of the sixty domain citations in answers naming GitLab Container Registry came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where GitLab Container Registry stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
In search
Google, US estimates- Searches for its name, Google
- 390 a month (“gitlab container registry”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 19 a month
- Its own site
- It sits on GitLab's site (gitlab.com), so there are no site figures for it alone
In answers
This edition- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 21 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 16 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.
Follow GitLab Container Registry
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
GitLab is the company behind GitLab Container Registry.ShowHide
The company
On record
Company recordsClaim 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 GitLab Container Registry'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 GitLab Container Registry, 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 GitLab Container Registry by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where GitLab Container Registry 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 GitLab Container Registry, 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.