CNCF Distribution vs Harbor
No clear leader: CNCF Distribution (66.3) and Harbor (65.8) are within the 5-point margin; treat as a tie. The attribute-by-attribute breakdown below, with a source and date on every value, is the honest way to compare them.
Capabilities
Feature-by-feature on the axes that matter for container registries. “-” means undocumented, not absent.
What each one is
The product in its own terms, so the numbers below have context.
CNCF Distribution
Docker Hub enables developers to push, pull, and manage container images with their teams, automate builds and deployments through webhooks, and control access to repositories.
Harbor
A self-hosted Docker Distribution extension that provides centralized storage for container images and Helm charts with integrated security features including image signing, vulnerability scanning, user authentication, access control, and cross-registry replication.
Pricing
List pricing as published by each vendor, with the date we read it. Always verify at the source before you buy.
Platform & deployment
Where each product runs and how it can be hosted. A dash means undocumented, not unsupported.
Integrations
What each product connects to. Counts come from the vendor's own integration directory where one exists.
CNCF Distribution
Not documented yet.
Harbor
- Trivy
- Cosign
- Redis
- Valkey
- LDAP
- Active Directory
- Docker
- Helm
CNCF Distribution or Harbor: which one depends on you
A composite score cannot know your constraints. Describe them and both get re-weighted against what you actually need, with the evidence behind every position.
Free to run, no account needed to start. How the evaluation works
Comparison generated from independently-sourced facts. Every value links to its source and retrieval date. See the method.