Harbor vs Angos

Harbor9.4Visit Angos9.0Visit

Higher score Harbor #1 in Container Registries 9.4/10 Open source ✓ 4 of 4 features Visit Harbor

vs

Angos #5 in Container Registries 9.0/10 Open source ✓ 4 of 4 features Visit Angos

• Harbor fits best

  Teams wanting a capable open-source registry

• Angos fits best

  Policy-driven open-source deployments

Advertiser disclosure: iTechGuides is reader-supported. Vendors can pay for top positions in our rankings and for a place on other products' pages, and we may earn a commission when you click some links. Bought places stand at the number bought; this page and our disclosure say so. Paying vendors may get a fuller, more detailed review from our editors, and that review can change their score. How we rank.

Side by side

Feature	Harbor 9.4/10 Visit ↗	Angos 9.0/10 Visit ↗
At a glance
Editor score	9.4	9.0
Ranking	#1 in Container Registries	#5 in Container Registries
Best for	Teams wanting a capable open-source registry	Policy-driven open-source deployments
Pricing model	Free	Free
Starting price	Open source	Open source
Free plan	Not checked yet	Not checked yet
Free trial	—	—
Deployment	Self-hosted	Self-hosted
Platforms	Web, Linux	Linux
Support	Community, Docs	Community, Docs
Integrations	9 integrations	8 integrations
Built for	Small business, Mid-market, Enterprise	Small business, Mid-market, Enterprise
Features Harbor 4/4 · Angos 4/4
Image scanning	✓	✓
OCI artifacts	✓	✓
Immutable tags	✓	✓
Retention policies	✓	✓
Specs
Replication scope	Not checked yet	Not checked yet
Included storage	Not checked yet	Not checked yet
Maximum image size	Not checked yet	Not checked yet
Our review
Pros	Supports OCI images, indexes, and other OCI artifacts Combines scanning, signing, immutability, retention, and RBAC Replicates with Harbor and other major registries	CEL policies cover access control, retention, and pruning Supports immutable tags, replication, and pull-through caching Works with OIDC, mTLS, Trivy, Grype, and S3-compatible storage
Cons	Requires self-hosted deployment and ongoing administration No AI features for AI-assisted registry workflows Web and API access still depend on your hosting environment	Self-hosted deployment requires teams to manage the registry environment Vulnerability scanning depends on an external Trivy or Grype service Not positioned as a hosted registry with managed operations
Our verdict	Harbor is a self-hosted, open-source container registry for organizations managing container images and cloud-native artifacts. It fits teams that want control over deployment and registry policies without a proprietary license. Projects… Read the review →	Angos is an open-source, self-hosted container registry for development, CI/CD, and infrastructure teams distributing Docker-compatible and OCI images. It supports the OCI Distribution Specification v1.1 and can store images on a… Read the review →

Strengths and trade-offs

• Harbor — where it wins

  • Supports OCI images, indexes, and other OCI artifacts
  • Combines scanning, signing, immutability, retention, and RBAC
  • Replicates with Harbor and other major registries

  Where it doesn't

  • Requires self-hosted deployment and ongoing administration
  • No AI features for AI-assisted registry workflows
  • Web and API access still depend on your hosting environment

• Angos — where it wins

  • CEL policies cover access control, retention, and pruning
  • Supports immutable tags, replication, and pull-through caching
  • Works with OIDC, mTLS, Trivy, Grype, and S3-compatible storage

  Where it doesn't

  • Self-hosted deployment requires teams to manage the registry environment
  • Vulnerability scanning depends on an external Trivy or Grype service
  • Not positioned as a hosted registry with managed operations

• Harbor9.4/10 · Open source

  A self-hosted Harbor registry with strong policy, scanning, signing, and replication controls.

  Visit HarborFull verdict →
• Angos9.0/10 · Open source

  An open-source registry for teams that need policy controls, caching, replication, and self-hosting.

  Visit AngosFull verdict →