Companies Using Jamf

A record in DNS is not software on a website

Jamf is identified from a jamf-site-verification TXT record published in the domain's DNS. That record does one thing: it proves an organisation holds a Jamf account and has verified this domain against it. It says nothing about how many Macs are enrolled, or whether any are. And it does not mean the website runs Jamf. Apple device management lives on laptops, iPads and iPhones inside a company. It never touches the marketing page you can see from outside.

So 8,866 is a floor on organisations with a verified Jamf account, and it is worth saying which way each error runs. The count misses every customer that never bothered to verify a domain, which pushes the real figure up. It keeps a few records nobody deleted when they cancelled, which pushes a small part of it the other way. If you want the mechanics of signals like this one, we wrote up the detection methods behind them. The record is public, so anyone can query the DNS for one of these domains and read it back.

One side effect is unusual enough to flag. We resolved 8,135 of the 8,866 domains to a company record, 91.8%. On a signal read from the page itself that number normally sits near 60%: Debian matches 59.7%. A domain carrying a corporate verification record is, by construction, a real organisation's real domain rather than a parked page or a hobby blog, so the enrichment lands almost every time. It is the one place where an account-level signal is cleaner than an install-level one.

The size curve runs backwards

This is the chart that made me stop. 30.42% of the 8,050 organisations that report a headcount employ more than 1,000 people, 7.49% employ more than 10,000, and only 8.02% employ ten or fewer. On a typical profile here that last figure runs between 50% and 65%. Debian is 65.25%. The mass sits at 51-200 (21.94%), 1001-5000 (18.43%) and 201-500 (16.46%).

That is what a centrally bought product looks like when you measure it at the domain rather than at the device. Nobody with four Macs buys a management platform. Somebody with four hundred has no real choice. Because the signal is an account rather than an install, what this page counts is the buying organisation, not the endpoint, which is the more useful unit anyway for anyone selling into the same IT budget.

Most technology profiles on this site are a picture of small companies. This one is a picture of IT departments.

Education is the biggest thing here, and the chart hides it

Software Development takes the largest single industry label at 11.38% of the 7,923 organisations with a recorded industry. Education takes three labels and beats it. Higher Education at 7.67%, Primary and Secondary Education at 5.38% and Education Administration Programs at 3.81% come to 1,336 organisations, 16.86%. Split across three rows, it never appears at the top of the bar chart, which is exactly the kind of thing a ranked list is bad at showing.

The country table points the same way. Australia is third on 389 organisations, above Germany's 370 and 1.64 times Canada's 237. That ordering shows up on very few profiles we publish, and on this one it sits next to a 16.86% education share. Financial Services (7.17%) and IT Services and IT Consulting (6.88%) fill out the top, and adding Software Development, IT Services and Technology, Information and Internet gives a technology cluster of 21.33%.

Old institutions, large fleets

The age distribution reads the same way as the size one. The 2010s lead at 26.51% of the 6,534 organisations with a founding year, which is ordinary, but Pre-1960 is second at 20.94% and 37.74% of this base was founded before 1990. Only 6.96% were founded in the 2020s.

The named list makes that concrete. Pfizer dates to 1848, HSBC to 1865, AT&T to 1885, Roche to 1896, Deloitte to 1900, Ford to 1903, UPS to 1907 and IBM to 1911. Thirty-two of the 34 organisations named on this page employ more than 10,000 people, and ten of them are IT services or consulting firms: Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, Cognizant, IBM, Wipro, Concentrix, Tech Mahindra, LTIMindtree, Deloitte and Genpact. Those firms manage other organisations' Mac fleets for a living, which is a different reason to hold an account from the one Starbucks or Target has, and worth separating before anyone treats the list as a set of lookalikes.

Why there is no migration table

We publish a switching corridor only when the evidence supports one, and Jamf has not been measured for a corridor. The movement we can report is turnover, and it is small. 82 domains have stopped publishing a Jamf verification record since mid-March, 50 of them inside the last 30 days and 77 inside the last 90. Against 8,866 live domains that is 0.9%, one of the lowest rates on anything we track.

Do not read it as a retention figure. A DNS record does not flicker the way a script on a page does, so a low rate is partly a property of where the signal lives rather than a statement about the product. The rest is inertia. Cancelling a subscription and tidying up a TXT record are two different jobs, and only one of them has a deadline attached.

A churn rate of 0.9% is not evidence that nobody leaves. It is evidence that nobody tidies up their DNS.

What the stack does and does not tell you

Read the co-occurrence list in two halves. Google Tag Manager at 79.03%, jQuery at 72.49% and Google Analytics at 68.59% are things the marketing site loads. They confirm these are organisations with real, maintained websites and nothing beyond that. None of them can tell you anything about a laptop.

The other half is declared by the domain itself, the same kind of signal as the Jamf record sitting beside it. Apple iCloud Mail appears on 75.11%, Microsoft 365 on 36.90% and Google Workspace on 30.96%. An Apple record in three quarters of these zones is the expected result for a base defined by Apple device management. The more interesting row is Microsoft 365 sitting above Google Workspace, because a large part of this base runs Microsoft mail alongside Apple hardware, which is the mixed estate Jamf exists to sit in.

What to take from this

Jamf files 10th of the 43 technologies in our Productivity & Collaboration category on 2.35% share, behind Zoom, DocuSign and Slack, and that ranking is the least useful number on the page. Nothing above it manages a device. The rank describes a filing cabinet, not a market.

What the data does support is narrower and more useful. These 8,866 domains belong to organisations that set Jamf up against a domain they own. They skew large, they skew old, and education is 16.86% of them. If you sell into this base, the two segments worth separating are the education cluster and the IT services firms, because both buy for reasons the rest of the list does not share. The number to argue with is 8,866, and the honest thing to say about it is that the real count of Jamf customers is higher and a handful of these records outlived the account that created them. TechnologyChecker.io resolves it against 8,135 identified organisations and refreshes it every month.