Index › Products › GitLab Packages · October 2026 Edition

GitLab · 1 category · Named, not ranked

GitLab Packages

7Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

5 / 14Models named it

1Category

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, 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. GitLab Packages was named 1 time in Artifact registries, where JFrog Artifactory led with 14%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business33 of 86

under the label threshold

Mid-market69 of 89

under the label threshold

Enterprise40 of 77

under the label threshold

In artifact registries · 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 GitLab Packages 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	0%	69 of 89	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by JFrog Artifactory at 14%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for GitLab Packages 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 GitLab Packages across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative7 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“Convenience for those already on the platform... Small teams or companies trying to consolidate tools.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Artifact registries · scale prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as GitLab Packages, over the 7 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and GitLab Packages was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

JFrog Artifactory5 of 72Not among the top eight

Cloudsmith5 of 70Not among the top eight

GitHub Packages4 of 72Not among the top eight

Harbor4 of 70Not among the top eight

Sonatype Nexus Repository OSS3 of 71Not among the top eight

Google Artifact Registry3 of 70Not among the top eight

AWS CodeArtifact2 of 70Not among the top eight

GitHub2 of 70Not among the top eight

Artifactory1 of 71Not among the top eight

Nexus1 of 71Not 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 GitLab Packages. 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 6 of the 7 answers that named GitLab Packages and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gitnux.org4

cloudrepo.io3

devopsschool.com3

harness.io3

imaginarycloud.com3

jfrog.com3

sonatype.com3

thectoclub.com3

buildkite.com2

ciopages.com2

Twenty-nine of the twenty-nine domain citations in answers naming GitLab Packages came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gitnux.org/best/artifact-software3

gitnux.org/best/artifacts-in-software3

harness.io/blog/best-artifact-repository-tools3

imaginarycloud.com/blog/best-artifact-repository-tools3

sonatype.com/compare/best-artifact-repository-solutions3

thectoclub.com/tools/best-artifact-repository-tools3

buildkite.com/resources/ci-cd-perspectives/alternatives-to-jfrog-artifactory2

ciopages.com/buyer-guides/container-registry-artifact-management2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as GitLab Packages

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

GitHub / GitLab Packages 1

Follow GitLab Packages

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 Packages.

ShowHide

On record

Company records

Also from GitLab: GitLab CI, GitLab CI/CD, GitLab CI/CD variables, GitLab Container & Package Registry, GitLab Container Registry, GitLab Container Registry + Package Registry, GitLab Dependency Scanning, GitLab Duo and 6 more

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: With GitLab 7.10 we have introduced package repositories for GitLab, that allow you to install GitLab with a simple 'apt-get' command.
about.gitlab.com/upgrade-to-package-repository
For: If you are coming from a manually downloaded Omnibus package, you can quickly and easily upgrade.
about.gitlab.com/upgrade-to-package-repository
Free plan or trial: Kostenlose 30-tägige GitLab-Testversion starten about.gitlab.com/de-de/changes-to-packages-gitlab-com-what-you-need-to-know
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers

What GitLab Packages's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: about.gitlab.com/upgrade-to-package-repository, about.gitlab.com/dependency-firewall/beta, about.gitlab.com/de-de/changes-to-packages-gitlab-com-what-you-need-to-know. 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 GitLab Packages'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 Packages, 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 Packages by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where GitLab Packages 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 Packages, 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.