Do coding agents recommend Cloudflare AI Gateway?
Cloudflare AI Gateway was chosen in 21% of 140 judged AI gateways sessions, ranking second. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor.
Cloudflare AI Gateway was chosen in 21% of 140 judged AI gateways sessions, ranking second. It was also raised as a candidate in 85 further sessions without being chosen.
This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor had to solve a problem in AI gateways inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Cloudflare AI Gateway. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | AI gateways |
| Sessions in the category | 140 |
| Sessions where Cloudflare AI Gateway was chosen | 30 |
| Install share | 21% |
| Rank in category | 2 of 8 |
| Codebases it won in | 8 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 85 |
| Chosen when considered | 26% |
| Site | cloudflare.com |
By agent
The three agents treat Cloudflare AI Gateway very differently. Codex chose it in 42% of its sessions in this category and Cursor in 0%, a spread of 42 points.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Cloudflare AI Gateway | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 45 | 10 | 22% |
| Codex | 48 | 20 | 42% |
| Cursor | 47 | 0 | 0% |
A single blended install share would report the midpoint and hide both ends. If most of your users run Cursor, your real position here is 0%, not 21%.
By who was asking
Cloudflare AI Gateway does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 31% of sessions asked as vibe coder and 16% of those asked as senior engineer.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Cloudflare AI Gateway | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 16 | 5 | 31% |
| Junior developer | 33 | 10 | 30% |
| Senior engineer | 56 | 9 | 16% |
| Enterprise team | 35 | 6 | 17% |
What Cloudflare AI Gateway was up against
The full ranking in AI gateways, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Portkey | 30 | 21% |
| 2 | Cloudflare AI Gateway (this page) | 30 | 21% |
| 3 | LiteLLM | 25 | 18% |
| 4 | Vercel AI Gateway | 22 | 16% |
| 5 | OpenRouter | 15 | 11% |
| 6 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 12 | 9% |
| 7 | Amazon Bedrock | 3 | 2% |
| 8 | Helicone | 1 | 1% |
What this means
A solid second or third position in a category means the agent is genuinely choosing rather than reaching automatically. That is a winnable position, because the inputs it uses can be changed.
The fastest gains are usually in the sessions that were nearly won: read them, find the step where the agent moved on, and fix that step.
Where these numbers come from
The 140 sessions in AI gateways are part of a published set of 5,292, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.
Every AI gateways run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Cloudflare AI Gateway: 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 Cloudflare AI Gateway?
Yes. Cloudflare AI Gateway was chosen in 30 of the 140 judged sessions in AI gateways, a 21% install share, ranking second in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Cloudflare AI Gateway?
In 10 of the 45 sessions in AI gateways run with Claude Code, which is 22%.
Do different coding agents treat Cloudflare AI Gateway differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Codex chose it in 42% of its runs and Cursor in 0%.
How was this measured?
Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 51 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 Cloudflare AI Gateway considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 85 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 30. That is a 26% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 5,292 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor inside 51 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.