Do coding agents recommend Django translation framework?
Django translation framework was chosen in 19% of 500 judged internationalization sessions, ranking second.
Django translation framework was chosen in 19% of 500 judged internationalization sessions, ranking second. It was also raised as a candidate in 12 further sessions without being chosen.
This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code had to solve a problem in internationalization inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Django translation framework. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Internationalization |
| Sessions in the category | 500 |
| Sessions where Django translation framework was chosen | 96 |
| Install share | 19% |
| Rank in category | 2 of 31 |
| Codebases it won in | 3 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 12 |
| Chosen when considered | 89% |
| Site | docs.djangoproject.com |
By agent
Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Muse Code agree closely on Django translation framework, choosing it at rates within 3 points of each other. Grok Build CLI ran fewer than 30 sessions here, too few to compare.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Django translation framework | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 113 | 23 | 20% |
| Codex | 150 | 25 | 17% |
| Cursor | 103 | 20 | 19% |
| Grok Build CLI | 26 | 6 | 23% |
| Muse Code | 108 | 22 | 20% |
By who was asking
Django translation framework does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 46% of sessions asked as enterprise team and 0% of those asked as senior engineer.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Django translation framework | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 102 | 0 | 0% |
| Junior developer | 115 | 17 | 15% |
| Senior engineer | 113 | 0 | 0% |
| Enterprise team | 170 | 79 | 46% |
What Django translation framework was up against
The full ranking in internationalization, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | next-intl | 110 | 22% |
| 2 | Django translation framework (this page) | 96 | 19% |
| 3 | Symfony Translation | 41 | 8% |
| 4 | Paraglide JS | 41 | 8% |
| 5 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 41 | 8% |
| 6 | Rails I18n | 38 | 8% |
| 7 | Vue I18n | 27 | 5% |
| 8 | i18next | 27 | 5% |
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 500 sessions in internationalization are part of a published set of 15,051, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.
Every internationalization run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Django translation framework: 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 Django translation framework?
Yes. Django translation framework was chosen in 96 of the 500 judged sessions in internationalization, a 19% install share, ranking second in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Django translation framework?
In 23 of the 113 sessions in internationalization run with Claude Code, which is 20%.
Do different coding agents treat Django translation framework differently?
Not much. Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Muse Code chose it at similar rates, between 17% and 20% of their runs.
How was this measured?
Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 92 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 Django translation framework considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 12 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 96. That is a 89% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 15,051 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code inside 92 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.