Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

DigitalOcean Container Registry vs Red Hat Quay comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

DigitalOcean Container Regi...
Ranking in Container Registry
9th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Red Hat Quay
Ranking in Container Registry
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Container Registry category, the mindshare of DigitalOcean Container Registry is 0.9%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Quay is 8.0%, down from 8.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Registry
 

Featured Reviews

Use DigitalOcean Container Registry?
Share your opinion
SunilkumarSivan - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Registry solutions are best for your needs.
865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Red Hat Quay?
From the AI perspective, it just serves as a container registry at this point. We are also looking for the possibility to retain a VM image from Quay, which is not possible currently. So, nothing i...
What is your primary use case for Red Hat Quay?
We use Red Hat Quay as a single source of truth for all of our container images. We store all the container images that are used in the OpenShift platform.
What advice do you have for others considering Red Hat Quay?
I would definitely recommend it. Overall, I would rate this product an eight out of ten.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Rainmaker Digital, Accern, Fanout, QuoDeck, Lytham Labs, Route Trust
The Asiakastieto Group, Akbank, TTTECH
Find out what your peers are saying about JFrog, Amazon Web Services (AWS), GoHarbor and others in Container Registry. Updated: July 2025.
865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.