Do coding agents recommend Dropbox Sign?
Dropbox Sign was chosen in 19% of 232 judged e-signature sessions, ranking second. Measured with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code.
Dropbox Sign was chosen in 19% of 232 judged e-signature sessions, ranking second. It was also raised as a candidate in 133 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 e-signature inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Dropbox Sign. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | E-signature |
| Sessions in the category | 232 |
| Sessions where Dropbox Sign was chosen | 44 |
| Install share | 19% |
| Rank in category | 2 of 13 |
| Codebases it won in | 6 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 133 |
| Chosen when considered | 25% |
| Site | sign.dropbox.com |
By agent
The agents treat Dropbox Sign very differently. Claude Code chose it in 30% of its sessions in this category and Muse Code in 2%, a spread of 28 points. Grok Build CLI ran fewer than 30 sessions here, too few to compare.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Dropbox Sign | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 44 | 13 | 30% |
| Codex | 71 | 19 | 27% |
| Cursor | 52 | 11 | 21% |
| Grok Build CLI | 15 | 0 | 0% |
| Muse Code | 50 | 1 | 2% |
A single blended install share would report the midpoint and hide both ends. If most of your users run Muse Code, your real position here is 2%, not 19%.
By who was asking
Dropbox Sign does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 42% of sessions asked as senior engineer and 12% of those asked as junior developer.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Dropbox Sign | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Junior developer | 86 | 10 | 12% |
| Senior engineer | 50 | 21 | 42% |
| Enterprise team | 96 | 13 | 14% |
What Dropbox Sign was up against
The full ranking in e-signature, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DocuSign | 87 | 38% |
| 2 | Dropbox Sign (this page) | 44 | 19% |
| 3 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 32 | 14% |
| 4 | YouTrust | 23 | 10% |
| 5 | Microsoft 365 eSignature | 20 | 9% |
| 6 | Documenso | 6 | 3% |
| 7 | Signable | 5 | 2% |
| 8 | SignWell | 4 | 2% |
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 232 sessions in e-signature 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 e-signature run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Dropbox Sign: 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 Dropbox Sign?
Yes. Dropbox Sign was chosen in 44 of the 232 judged sessions in e-signature, a 19% install share, ranking second in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Dropbox Sign?
In 13 of the 44 sessions in e-signature run with Claude Code, which is 30%.
Do different coding agents treat Dropbox Sign differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Claude Code chose it in 30% of its runs and Muse Code in 2%.
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 Dropbox Sign considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 133 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 44. That is a 25% 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.