Do coding agents recommend CodeRabbit?
CodeRabbit was chosen in 12% of 290 judged code review sessions, ranking fourth. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor.
CodeRabbit was chosen in 12% of 290 judged code review sessions, ranking fourth. It was also raised as a candidate in 142 further sessions without being chosen.
This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor had to solve a problem in code review inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about CodeRabbit. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Code review |
| Sessions in the category | 290 |
| Sessions where CodeRabbit was chosen | 34 |
| Install share | 12% |
| Rank in category | 4 of 10 |
| Codebases it won in | 6 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 142 |
| Chosen when considered | 19% |
| Site | coderabbit.ai |
By agent
The three agents land within 14 points of each other on CodeRabbit, which is closer than most products in this experiment manage.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose CodeRabbit | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 100 | 7 | 7% |
| Codex | 100 | 21 | 21% |
| Cursor | 90 | 6 | 7% |
By who was asking
CodeRabbit does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 36% of sessions asked as senior engineer and 5% of those asked as enterprise team.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose CodeRabbit | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 58 | 3 | 5% |
| Junior developer | 116 | 7 | 6% |
| Senior engineer | 58 | 21 | 36% |
| Enterprise team | 58 | 3 | 5% |
What CodeRabbit was up against
The full ranking in code review, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Code review | 76 | 26% |
| 2 | Cursor Bugbot | 71 | 24% |
| 3 | Codex code review | 37 | 13% |
| 4 | CodeRabbit (this page) | 34 | 12% |
| 5 | Qodo Merge | 24 | 8% |
| 6 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 19 | 7% |
| 7 | Semgrep | 10 | 3% |
| 8 | GitHub Copilot code review | 9 | 3% |
What this means
This is an integration problem, not a presence problem. Agents raised CodeRabbit in 142 sessions and chose it in 34, so it reaches the shortlist and then loses. Something at the last step is costing the session, and in our data that is usually a quickstart that does not run when pasted, documentation describing an interface that changed, or a package name that does not match the product name.
That is the cheaper of the two problems to have. The reason is written down in each losing transcript.
Where these numbers come from
The 290 sessions in code review are part of a published set of 5,915, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.
Every code review run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on CodeRabbit: 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 CodeRabbit?
Yes. CodeRabbit was chosen in 34 of the 290 judged sessions in code review, a 12% install share, ranking fourth in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend CodeRabbit?
In 7 of the 100 sessions in code review run with Claude Code, which is 7%.
Do different coding agents treat CodeRabbit differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Codex chose it in 21% of its runs and Claude Code in 7%.
How was this measured?
Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 56 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 CodeRabbit considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 142 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 34. That is a 19% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 5,915 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor inside 56 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.