Do coding agents recommend GoCardless?
GoCardless was chosen in 3% of 657 judged payments sessions, ranking fourth. Measured with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code.
GoCardless was chosen in 3% of 657 judged payments sessions, ranking fourth. It was also raised as a candidate in 148 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 payments inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about GoCardless. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Payments |
| Sessions in the category | 657 |
| Sessions where GoCardless was chosen | 17 |
| Install share | 3% |
| Rank in category | 4 of 9 |
| Codebases it won in | 3 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 148 |
| Chosen when considered | 10% |
| Site | gocardless.com |
By agent
With 17 wins spread across 5 agents, the rates below are small numbers and a difference between them is not yet a finding. They are here because the direction is worth knowing, not because the gap is established.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose GoCardless | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 165 | 1 | 1% |
| Codex | 198 | 5 | 3% |
| Cursor | 164 | 5 | 3% |
| Grok Build CLI | 33 | 2 | 6% |
| Muse Code | 97 | 4 | 4% |
By who was asking
GoCardless performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 0% to 9%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 24 of the 31 categories we measured.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose GoCardless | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 119 | 0 | 0% |
| Junior developer | 180 | 0 | 0% |
| Senior engineer | 180 | 1 | 1% |
| Enterprise team | 178 | 16 | 9% |
What GoCardless was up against
The full ranking in payments, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stripe | 578 | 88% |
| 2 | Paddle | 27 | 4% |
| 3 | Mollie | 18 | 3% |
| 4 | GoCardless (this page) | 17 | 3% |
| 5 | Adyen | 9 | 1% |
| 6 | Bottomline PTX | 3 | 0% |
| 7 | AccessPay | 2 | 0% |
| 8 | Helcim | 2 | 0% |
What this means
This is an integration problem, not a presence problem. Agents raised GoCardless in 148 sessions and chose it in 17, 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 657 sessions in payments are part of a published set of 15,287, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.
Every payments run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on GoCardless: 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 GoCardless?
Yes. GoCardless was chosen in 17 of the 657 judged sessions in payments, a 3% install share, ranking fourth in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend GoCardless?
In 1 of the 165 sessions in payments run with Claude Code, which is 1%.
Do different coding agents treat GoCardless differently?
Not much. Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code chose it at similar rates, between 1% and 6% of their runs.
How was this measured?
Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 110 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 GoCardless considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 148 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 17. That is a 10% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 15,287 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code inside 110 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.