Do coding agents recommend Grafana?
Grafana was chosen in 14% of 360 judged observability sessions, ranking second. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor.
Grafana was chosen in 14% of 360 judged observability sessions, ranking second. It was also raised as a candidate in 212 further sessions without being chosen.
This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor had to solve a problem in observability inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Grafana. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Observability |
| Sessions in the category | 360 |
| Sessions where Grafana was chosen | 52 |
| Install share | 14% |
| Rank in category | 2 of 16 |
| Codebases it won in | 6 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 212 |
| Chosen when considered | 20% |
| Site | grafana.com |
By agent
The three agents treat Grafana very differently. Claude Code chose it in 25% of its sessions in this category and Cursor in 8%, a spread of 17 points.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Grafana | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 120 | 30 | 25% |
| Codex | 120 | 12 | 10% |
| Cursor | 120 | 10 | 8% |
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 8%, not 14%.
By who was asking
Grafana does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 56% of sessions asked as enterprise team and 0% of those asked as junior developer.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Grafana | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 12 | 0 | 0% |
| Junior developer | 12 | 0 | 0% |
| Senior engineer | 300 | 32 | 11% |
| Enterprise team | 36 | 20 | 56% |
What Grafana was up against
The full ranking in observability, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sentry | 133 | 37% |
| 2 | Grafana (this page) | 52 | 14% |
| 3 | Amazon CloudWatch | 30 | 8% |
| 4 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 22 | 6% |
| 5 | Checkly | 17 | 5% |
| 6 | Datadog | 16 | 4% |
| 7 | Better Stack | 15 | 4% |
| 8 | New Relic | 15 | 4% |
What this means
This is an integration problem, not a presence problem. Agents raised Grafana in 212 sessions and chose it in 52, 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 360 sessions in observability 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 observability run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Grafana: 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 Grafana?
Yes. Grafana was chosen in 52 of the 360 judged sessions in observability, a 14% install share, ranking second in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Grafana?
In 30 of the 120 sessions in observability run with Claude Code, which is 25%.
Do different coding agents treat Grafana differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Claude Code chose it in 25% of its runs and Cursor in 8%.
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 Grafana considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 212 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 52. That is a 20% 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.