| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artifact and container registries | Developer platform | 3% | 12 of 89 | 10% | 10 | accepted challenger |
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Start with GitLab Package Registry if you're not already locked into another platform - it's truly free with no hidden costs when self-hosted” Kimi K2 · Artifact registries · budget prompt · first choice
“the most cost-effective solution is to use their built-in package registries” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Artifact registries · budget prompt · first choice
“Strong Alternative If You Already Use GitLab: GitLab Package Registry” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Artifact registries · budget prompt · alternative
“Best for Ecosystem Integration (If Already Using GitLab or GitHub)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Artifact registries · direct prompt · alternative
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.
“Cons: Often less mature in terms of advanced proxying, virtual repositories, and advanced binary management compared to dedicated tools.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Artifact registries · scale prompt · soft negative
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 Package Registry and are not a share of its labels.
Seventy-one of the seventy-six domain citations in answers naming GitLab Package Registry came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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.
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.
What GitLab Package Registry's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: about.gitlab.com/upgrade-to-package-repository, about.gitlab.com/de-de/changes-to-packages-gitlab-com-what-you-need-to-know. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Package 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 Package Registry, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for GitLab Package Registry by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: