- Home
- ...
- Container Registry Software
- Docker hub
- Google Artifact Registry
- Docker hub-vs-Google Artifact Registry
Compare Docker and Google Artifact Registry 
- Users report that Docker excels in deployment capabilities, with a score of 9.3, allowing for seamless container orchestration and management, while Google Artifact Registry, although strong, does not match this level of deployment efficiency.
- Reviewers mention that Docker's package management features are robust, providing excellent integration with CI/CD pipelines, whereas Google Artifact Registry's package management is more focused on artifact storage and retrieval, which may not be as comprehensive for some users.
- G2 users highlight that Docker's self-healing high availability feature scores 8.2, which is crucial for maintaining uptime, while Google Artifact Registry does not specifically offer this feature, potentially impacting reliability in high-demand environments.
- Users on G2 indicate that Docker's automation capabilities are superior, allowing for streamlined workflows and reduced manual intervention, while Google Artifact Registry's automation features are more limited, focusing primarily on artifact management.
- Reviewers say that Docker's security features, including automatic security updates, score 8.6, providing peace of mind for users, while Google Artifact Registry also offers security updates but lacks the same level of automation, which some users find less convenient.
- Users report that Docker's ease of use is rated at 8.7, making it accessible for small businesses, while Google Artifact Registry, with a slightly lower ease of use rating of 8.5, may present a steeper learning curve for new users.
First contact I had with this tool was when I needed to pull a legacy PostgreSQL application. It was super easy to find the Official PGSQL repository and ready its Dockerfile contents. There I could find the Github project where that file points to,...
The automated image build tools are the main reason this would be worth paying for and they are quite poor. The lack features and development seems to be very slow. Some time back Docker bought up a company making something like this, so perhaps that's...
I have been using Google artifact registry past few years As a user, one of the key aspects I appreciate about Google Artifact Registry is its seamless integration with Google Cloud Platform. The ease of use and the simplicity in storing and managing...
Vendor lock-in is really bad what if I like to use different cloud services. Why limit services?
First contact I had with this tool was when I needed to pull a legacy PostgreSQL application. It was super easy to find the Official PGSQL repository and ready its Dockerfile contents. There I could find the Github project where that file points to,...
I have been using Google artifact registry past few years As a user, one of the key aspects I appreciate about Google Artifact Registry is its seamless integration with Google Cloud Platform. The ease of use and the simplicity in storing and managing...
The automated image build tools are the main reason this would be worth paying for and they are quite poor. The lack features and development seems to be very slow. Some time back Docker bought up a company making something like this, so perhaps that's...
Vendor lock-in is really bad what if I like to use different cloud services. Why limit services?
