Amazon ECR vs Red Hat Quay comparison

Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Red Hat are both solutions in the Container Registry category. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.4, while Red Hat is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.0. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 18.3% mindshare in CR, compared to Red Hat’s 8.0% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Amazon Web Services (AWS) users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.

Amazon ECR

Read 21 Amazon ECR reviews

3,638 Views
3,638 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Red Hat Quay

Read 3 Red Hat Quay reviews

1,719 Views
1,719 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Amazon ECR

Red Hat Quay

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on May 21, 2025

Amazon ECR and Red Hat Quay compete as container registries, with Amazon ECR better integrated with AWS, while Red Hat Quay is stronger in security.

Features: Amazon ECR offers seamless AWS integration, automatic image scanning, and lifecycle policies for effective image management. Red Hat Quay provides enhanced security with image vulnerability scanning, supports multiple architectures, and includes build automation tools.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Amazon ECR deploys easily within AWS, facilitating management for AWS users and offers responsive customer support. Red Hat Quay allows flexible deployment across environments, supported by comprehensive documentation, benefiting complex deployments with substantial technical support.

Pricing and ROI: Amazon ECR follows a pay-as-you-go pricing model, delivering high ROI for AWS users due to integration and cost efficiency. Red Hat Quay involves higher setup investment, providing value through advanced security and comprehensive features for security-focused users.

To learn more, read our detailed Amazon ECR vs. Red Hat Quay Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Amazon ECR vs. Red Hat Quay

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,349 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Amazon ECR

Ranking in Container Registry

2nd

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Red Hat Quay

Ranking in Container Registry

6th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

5.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Container Registry category, the mindshare of Amazon ECR is 18.3%, up from 16.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Quay is 8.0%, down from 8.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Container Registry Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Amazon ECR	18.3%
Red Hat Quay	8.0%
Other	73.7%

Container Registry

Featured Reviews

Eli Chavez

Senior Project Manager at NTT DATA

Solution delivers consistent reliability and high stability

ECR is reliable, however, I don't consider it the best container registry available. The main reason is that it is not entirely based on the original Docker registry. For instance, I prefer Azure's ACR because, in ACR, there is no need to create repositories; I simply push. Logging into the repository and specifying the path automatically creates everything. This structure resembles an S3 setup with a container registry layout.

Read full review

SunilkumarSivan

Sr. DevOps Engineer (OpenShift/Kubernetes) at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees

Experience with image management has improved application deployments

The best features in Red Hat Quay include the user interface and the RBAC facility, which allows us to control image access for specific teams. We have geo-replication in place, where storage can be replicated across regions, providing redundancy to prevent single points of failure. It is configured to ensure constant availability. Red Hat Quay's automated image building enhances CI/CD pipeline efficiency because all our applications are deployed through CI/CD pipeline, whether Jenkins or Octopus, and can pull images directly through Red Hat Quay using robot accounts and service accounts. This makes it effective from that perspective. Role-based access control is a major feature we have been using because we have hundreds of applications deployed in our container platform, owned by various application owners. Role-based access helps us restrict access to unwanted users within the organization. We maintain separate organizations with different types of access for users, including admin access, view access, and read access for every image. The geo-replication happens at the backend, while the front-end RBAC is managed through a single dashboard. The continuous dynamic sync runs in the background, though monitoring capabilities are limited to the storage team's purview.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The ECR solution is good. It is integrated with AWS, and it's free. Everything is free, which makes it nice to use."

"The most valuable feature is that Amazon ECR is very simple and useful."

"Amazon ECR has a native integration with all AWS services, making it convenient for use within the AWS ecosystem."

"The autoscaling functionality is the main beneficial feature of Amazon ECR. It simplifies management, but some configurations can complicate things a bit."

"There are no issues. The service is remarkably stable."

"ECR provides robust security features, including image scanning and vulnerability assessment, supported by AWS identity and access management for fine-grained access control."

"In the case of Amazon ECR, there are various valuable features we can see. Currently, there are image-scanning capabilities that we use."

"The Docker compatibility that ECR offers is probably the most beneficial aspect of the solution."

More Amazon ECR pros

"It's easy to use, and it does what it is meant for."

"Things like downloading an image, pulling an image, tagging, and pushing it back to the needed organization are fairly easy compared to doing things through the command-line interface."

Cons

"Amazon ECR's manipulation capability of tags needs to be improved."

"The Amazon ECR interface could benefit from improvements to enhance user experience."

"The documentation could be improved."

"There is no room for improvement mentioned; it's good as is."

"Deeper integration with other security tools would enhance usability."

"There were some initial connectivity issues, especially when accessing ECR from our on-prem setup."

"One area for improvement in Amazon ECR is its complexity. It's pretty complex for newbies, particularly learning about private repositories, including how to access Amazon ECR through AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM)."

"There could be improvements to the interface of AWS concerning ECR."

More Amazon ECR cons

"Nothing is happening regarding AI. I don’t see the role of AI currently."

"It could be more integrated with other platforms."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The main difference between Amazon ECR and other solutions, like Google Kubernetes Engine, is that I haven't personally used GKE. However, I know that GKE costs around $60 per month, which is quite cost-effective."

"The product is expensive."

"My company currently has Amazon ECR under the pay-as-you-go model. The tool is more affordable than Azure Container Registry, and it's worth the money."

"The solution's price is reasonable compared to its competitors"

"Amazon ECR does not have a high cost."

"The solution's prices are high in India as compared to the US."

Information not available

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Registry solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

867,349 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

Insurance Company

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	7

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Amazon ECR?

One feature of Amazon ECR that I find particularly useful is its web interface, which makes management easy. The ability to manage and support token image updates is crucial for us. Moreover, utili...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Amazon ECR?

I haven't observed the costs associated with Amazon ECR services in detail.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Amazon ECR?

I would appreciate a feature in Amazon ECR that allows direct image downloads from open source into ECR, bypassing the current need to first pull the image to my server. This would streamline the p...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Red Hat Quay?

Red Hat Quay can improve its statistics capabilities. Currently, we don't have means to check the overall utilization, such as the number of repositories, frequency of usage for each repository, an...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Red Hat Quay?

The main use case is to use Red Hat Quay for image management as an enterprise image registry in our organization. All the container images, whether from AKS, GKE, or OpenShift, are stored on Red H...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Red Hat Quay?

I still have experience with Red Hat solutions, specifically with OpenShift and Red Hat Quay. I don't have experience with Red Hat AMQ, Satellite, or API Management, as those are handled by a platf...

See all answers

Comparisons

JFrog Container Registry vs Amazon ECR

Compared 39% of the time

Azure Container Registry vs Amazon ECR

Compared 33% of the time

Harbor vs Amazon ECR

Compared 15% of the time

Google Container Registry vs Amazon ECR

Compared 3% of the time

VMware Harbor Registry vs Amazon ECR

Compared 1% of the time

More Amazon ECR Competitors

Harbor vs Red Hat Quay

Compared 53% of the time

JFrog Container Registry vs Red Hat Quay

Compared 34% of the time

VMware Harbor Registry vs Red Hat Quay

Compared 4% of the time

Azure Container Registry vs Red Hat Quay

Compared 3% of the time

More Red Hat Quay Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Container Registry

August 2025

Download Amazon ECR product report

Buyer's Guide

Container Registry

August 2025

Download Red Hat Quay product report

Also Known As

Amazon Elastic Container Registry

No data available

Overview

Amazon Elastic Container Registry (ECR) is a fully-managed Docker container registry that makes it easy for developers to store, manage, and deploy Docker container images. Amazon ECR is integrated with Amazon Elastic Container Service (ECS), simplifying your development to production workflow.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Red Hat Quay is a private container registry that stores, builds, and deploys container images. It analyzes your images for security vulnerabilities, identifying potential issues that can help you mitigate security risks.

Red Hat

Sample Customers

Expedia, Intuit, Royal Dutch Shell, Brooks Brothers

The Asiakastieto Group, Akbank, TTTECH

Buyer's Guide

Amazon ECR vs. Red Hat Quay

July 2025

Free Report: Amazon ECR vs. Red Hat Quay

Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon ECR vs. Red Hat Quay and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,349 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Amazon ECR vs. Red Hat Quay report.

See our list of best Container Registry vendors.

We monitor all Container Registry reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.