Do coding agents recommend Anthropic Claude?
Anthropic Claude is the most chosen document processing, taking 24% of 360 judged document processing sessions. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor.
Anthropic Claude is the most chosen document processing, taking 24% of 360 judged document processing sessions. It was also raised as a candidate in 110 further sessions without being chosen.
This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor had to solve a problem in document processing inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Anthropic Claude. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Document processing |
| Sessions in the category | 360 |
| Sessions where Anthropic Claude was chosen | 87 |
| Install share | 24% |
| Rank in category | 1 of 30 |
| Codebases it won in | 11 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 110 |
| Chosen when considered | 44% |
| Site | anthropic.com |
By agent
The three agents treat Anthropic Claude very differently. Claude Code chose it in 63% of its sessions in this category and Codex in 0%, a spread of 63 points.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Anthropic Claude | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 120 | 75 | 63% |
| Codex | 120 | 0 | 0% |
| Cursor | 120 | 12 | 10% |
A single blended install share would report the midpoint and hide both ends. If most of your users run Codex, your real position here is 0%, not 24%.
By who was asking
Anthropic Claude does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 37% of sessions asked as vibe coder and 7% of those asked as enterprise team.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Anthropic Claude | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 30 | 11 | 37% |
| Junior developer | 180 | 49 | 27% |
| Senior engineer | 120 | 25 | 21% |
| Enterprise team | 30 | 2 | 7% |
What Anthropic Claude was up against
The full ranking in document processing, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Anthropic Claude (this page) | 87 | 24% |
| 2 | Azure AI Document Intelligence | 76 | 21% |
| 3 | Amazon Textract | 37 | 10% |
| 4 | Google Cloud Document AI | 31 | 9% |
| 5 | Google Gemini | 17 | 5% |
| 6 | Ocrolus | 15 | 4% |
| 7 | Reducto | 13 | 4% |
| 8 | Azure AI Content Understanding | 11 | 3% |
What this means
Leading a category is a position to defend rather than a result to celebrate. In our data, leaders lose ground in exactly two situations: when the person asking is an enterprise buyer with procurement constraints, and when a competitor's documentation is easier for an agent to integrate correctly.
The defence is unglamorous. Keep the quickstart running. Keep the version current on the page. Keep the names aligned. Stay in the templates.
Where these numbers come from
The 360 sessions in document processing are part of a published set of 7,385, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.
Every document processing run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Anthropic Claude: the judge recorded a reason for every session where it was raised and passed over. Those reasons are in the transcripts.
<!-- generated by scripts/write-data-pages.mjs -->
Common questions
Do coding agents recommend Anthropic Claude?
Yes. Anthropic Claude was chosen in 87 of the 360 judged sessions in document processing, a 24% install share, ranking first in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Anthropic Claude?
In 75 of the 120 sessions in document processing run with Claude Code, which is 63%.
Do different coding agents treat Anthropic Claude differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Claude Code chose it in 63% of its runs and Codex in 0%.
How was this measured?
Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 84 realistic codebases and asked to solve real tasks. A simulated project owner approved or questioned each recommendation before any code was written, and a judge from a model family that builds none of the agents read every session blind.
How often is Anthropic Claude considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 110 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 87. That is a 44% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 7,385 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor inside 84 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.