JFrog Container Registry Reviews

Name: JFrog Container Registry
Brand: JFrog
Rating: 3.7 (5 reviews)

Vendor: JFrog

3.7 out of 5

5 reviews
80% willing to recommend

What is JFrog Container Registry?

The JFrog Container Registry is a repository manager, which supports Docker and Helm registries and Generic repositories, allowing you to build, deploy and manage your container images while providing powerful features with fine-grained permission control behind a sleek and easy-to-use UI.

Get the JFrog Container Registry Buyer's Guide and find out what your peers are saying about JFrog Container Registry, Harbor, Amazon ECR and more!

JFrog Container Registry is the #1 ranked solution in top Container Registry solutions. PeerSpot users give JFrog Container Registry an average rating of 7.4 out of 10. JFrog Container Registry is most commonly compared to Harbor: JFrog Container Registry vs Harbor. JFrog Container Registry is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 68% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a financial services firm, accounting for 16% of all views.

Buyer's Guide

JFrog Container Registry

June 2025

Get the report

Helped 856,873 peers since 2012

Featured JFrog Container Registry reviews

Sai Balaji Bonagiri

DevOps Engineer at Infosys

In my experience, there was a bit of a learning curve at the beginning. It can be somewhat challenging to install and get started. However, once you gain some experience, working with JFrog becomes much easier. Overall, it's manageable for beginners, but there might be a bit of a learning curve. I'd call myself an intermediate user.

Read full review

Muhammad Usman Khawar

Software Engineer (DevOps/ SRE) at Sensys LLC

The solution's documentation available over the internet is not straightforward and customer-friendly. The documentation is mostly for the on-prem services, and there's no documentation for the cloud offering, which could be improved. The pricing is not readily explained over the internet, and I had to manually check a lot of forums to get an insight into how we are getting charged. We were on a pro plan, and JFrog could have suggested optimization or plan upgrades based on our utilization. That didn't happen unless we manually looked into it, and now we are considering moving away from this platform. The solution's storage costs are getting too high. Last month, we were charged around two and a half terabytes, which is a lot of data. We are considering moving towards a cost-effective platform.

Read full review

Sharath SK

Senior Consultant at Mettler-Toledo International Inc.

When managing Docker images, I find that JFrog Container Registry has very low latency when pushing or pulling images, which is a significant reason we are using JFrog, along with easily configurable endpoints to the application. We don't use the replication capabilities of JFrog Container Registry because we tag different sets of containers for every release. Over the years, I have seen nice improvements to the user interface of JFrog Container Registry, and I hope that more additional capabilities come in the future so that we can keep using this tool. Currently, JFrog Container Registry does not support my AI-driven workloads as we haven't explored that direction yet, but it's a consideration for future purposes. We have plans to increase the usage of JFrog Container Registry in the future as we have other products in the pipeline, and once they complete the MVP phase, we will take the next initiatives. Currently, we only have two endpoints for JFrog, one from AWS ( /products/amazon-aws-reviews ) and one from Azure ( /products/microsoft-azure-reviews ). Overall, I would rate JFrog Container Registry an eight.

Read full review

JFrog Container Registry mindshare

As of June 2025, the mindshare of JFrog Container Registry in the Container Registry category stands at 30.7%, up from 27.7% compared to the previous year, according to calculations based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Container Registry

PeerResearch reports based on JFrog Container Registry reviews

Type	Title	Date
Category	Container Registry	Jun 15, 2025	Download
Product	Reviews, tips, and advice from real users	Jun 15, 2025	Download
Comparison	JFrog Container Registry vs Amazon ECR	Jun 15, 2025	Download
Comparison	JFrog Container Registry vs Harbor	Jun 15, 2025	Download
Comparison	JFrog Container Registry vs Azure Container Registry	Jun 15, 2025	Download

Title	Rating	Mindshare	Recommending
Harbor	4.0	27.1%	100%	2 interviews Add to research
Amazon ECR	4.4	17.7%	100%	21 interviews Add to research

Valuable Features

JFrog Container Registry's most valuable features include code scanning and seamless integration with development and operations workflows. It supports hybrid SaaS environments and multi-cloud deployments across AWS, Azure, and GCP. Users appreciate the integration with JFrog Xray for vulnerability detection in containers and Helm charts. It supports enterprise-grade private container registries with JFrog Artifactory and facilitates end-to-end CI/CD pipelines on Kubernetes, enhancing the SDLC lifecycle and meeting sprint targets.

"We have integrated JFrog Xray, and we use it for storage purposes."
"It supports multi-cloud deployments across AWS, Azure, and GCP."
"We use the solution to compile the codes before publishing them. We utilize third-party containers and codes, downloading them to the JFrog Container Registry. Developers then access it from the JFrog Container Registry, and there's a specific job responsible for running and validating all security checks, ensuring compatibility. If there are any issues or if packages require updates, we manage those updates through this system."

Room for Improvement

JFrog Container Registry faces challenges in performance, particularly during data fetching from GitHub, and needs improvements in documentation clarity, especially for cloud offerings. Users encounter a learning curve initially and find documentation lacks transparency on pricing. Storage costs can become exceptionally high, with little guidance on plan optimization. Advanced security integrations beyond basic scanning and better vulnerability scanning categorization are necessary, along with enhanced automation for pipeline promotions based on quality and vulnerabilities.

"The solution's documentation available over the internet is not straightforward and customer-friendly."
"In my experience, there was a bit of a learning curve at the beginning. It can be somewhat challenging to install and get started."
"One challenge we face is related to performance. Our integration involves GitHab and JFrog Container Registry, with pipelines fetching data from GitHub and JFrog Container Registry for third-party code. However, there are instances where this process can slow down the pipeline."

Pricing

JFrog Container Registry users report that pricing is perceived as expensive, particularly compared to competitors. Some utilize the Pro version to manage 6GB data, with Enterprise plans around $750 under evaluation. Users appreciate various offerings such as self-hosted and cloud options, which factor in licenses, subscriptions, and nodes, though some rate pricing low on affordability. Annual licensing costs of $3 are deemed reasonable by a few users.

"JFrog Container Registry is a very expensive solution."
"The pricing is somewhat expensive compared to its competitors. We use the Pro version."
"The solution is expensive."

Popular Use Cases

JFrog Container Registry is primarily utilized for compiling codes, storing software artifacts, and managing packages and containers throughout the software supply chain. It integrates with various tools and supports build-to-release processes. Users push images and Helm charts for Kubernetes environments, deploy enterprise-grade private container registries with JFrog Artifactory, set up CI/CD pipelines, and perform security scans to address vulnerabilities.

Service and Support

JFrog Container Registry's tech support team is described as responsive, yet some users note that their response time could be improved. Many have not personally engaged with the team, relying on managers for past interactions. Others haven't needed support at all. Users find documentation straightforward and useful.

Deployment

Several users found JFrog Container Registry's initial setup straightforward, especially those with prior experience. DevOps engineers highlighted ease of use and familiarity with JFrog, estimating setup time between 15 to 30 minutes when configured correctly. Teams with previous knowledge faced fewer challenges. Others relied on documentation and online resources, noting a less developed user interface in earlier versions. Setup complexity varied with tools like Azure DevOps, GitLab, and Jenkins.

Scalability

JFrog Container Registry has a decent standing in scalability, rated eight out of ten by some users. Around half to two-thirds of teams incorporate it into their workflows. With a team of 35 developers, they praise it yet see cloud-based alternatives like Nexus as slightly superior. Users typically find no issues but mention a limitation with large file uploads, specifically with a 3.5 GB Kubernetes artifact being too large for upload due to restrictions.

Stability

Many users rate JFrog Container Registry's stability an eight out of ten. They experience reliable performance, especially for CI/CD workflows, with efficient automation. However, some encounter issues like lagging or crashing, particularly when downloading multiple artifacts concurrently. Despite occasional network exceptions, most find it stable and well-suited for integration with IoT device management.

These insights are based on the in-depth reviews provided by peers to help you make a better buying decision.

Download our JFrog Container Registry Buyer's Guide for additional reliable information.