Index › Products › ProGet · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

ProGet

12Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

8 / 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

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ProGet was named 4 times 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 business31 of 86

under the label threshold

Mid-market31 of 89

under the label threshold

Enterprise47 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 ProGet 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%	31 of 89	0%	4	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 ProGet 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 ProGet across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	1
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	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
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

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative12 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as ProGet, over the 12 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ProGet was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

JFrog Artifactory9 of 123Not among the top eight

GitHub Packages7 of 121Not among the top eight

Harbor7 of 120Not among the top eight

Cloudsmith6 of 120Not among the top eight

Google Artifact Registry5 of 121Not among the top eight

Azure Artifacts5 of 120Not among the top eight

Sonatype Nexus Repository4 of 121Not among the top eight

Docker Hub4 of 120Not among the top eight

AWS CodeArtifact3 of 120Not among the top eight

Amazon ECR3 of 120Not 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 ProGet. 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 12 of the 12 answers that named ProGet and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gitnux.org10

zipdo.co8

harness.io7

itechguides.com6

thectoclub.com6

cloudrepo.io5

g2.com5

binaries.live4

wifitalents.com4

byteplus.com3

No domain is on file for ProGet, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

gitnux.org/best/artifact-software7

zipdo.co/best/artifact-software7

harness.io/blog/best-artifact-repository-tools6

thectoclub.com/tools/best-artifact-repository-tools6

binaries.live/best-artifact-registry-tools-for-ci-cd-teams4

gitnux.org/best/artifacts-software4

itechguides.com/best/artifact-repository-software4

wifitalents.com/best/artifacts-in-software4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where ProGet stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 590 a month (“proget”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 18 a month
Its own site: No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 31 of 89 in artifact registries

Segment leader

14%

JFrog Artifactory

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 12 answers
Its own site cited: No site on file to match

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 ProGet

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.

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 ProGet'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 ProGet, 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 ProGet by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where ProGet 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 ProGet, 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.