IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Harbor · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Harbor

6Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

4 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. Harbor was named 1 time in Container security, where Aqua Security led with 18%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business14 of 62

under the label threshold

Mid-market36 of 78

under the label threshold

Enterprise51 of 63

under the label threshold

In container security · 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 Harbor 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
Container and Kubernetes security	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	36 of 78	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Aqua Security at 18%

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	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	1	1
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained3 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 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.

“Harbor: Secure registry with scanning.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Container security · 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 Harbor, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Harbor was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Trivy5 of 65Not in the top three

Falco5 of 62Not in the top three

Kubescape5 of 62Not in the top three

Aqua Security5 of 60Not in the top three

Sysdig4 of 60Not in the top three

Wiz3 of 61Not in the top three

Calico3 of 60Not in the top three

Snyk3 of 60Not in the top three

Cilium2 of 60Not in the top three

Docker Scout2 of 60Not 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 Harbor. 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 6 of the 6 answers that named Harbor and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

appsecsanta.com5

cyberpress.org5

gbhackers.com5

cybersecuritynews.com4

dokploy.com4

safeguard.sh4

decryptiondigest.com3

devtoollab.com3

minimus.io3

checkmarx.com2

Thirty-eight of the thirty-eight domain citations in answers naming Harbor came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

appsecsanta.com/container-security-tools5

cyberpress.org/container-security-by-business-size-25

cybersecuritynews.com/best-container-security-tools4

dokploy.com/blog/best-container-security-tools4

gbhackers.com/best-container-security-compared4

decryptiondigest.com/blog/guide-finding-best-container-security-tools3

devtoollab.com/blog/container-security-tools3

gbhackers.com/best-kubernetes-security-compared3

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 Harbor'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 Harbor, 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 harbor.com 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.