# Do coding agents recommend LiteLLM? > LiteLLM was chosen in 18% of 140 judged AI gateways sessions, ranking third. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor. Source: https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-litellm Published: 2026-09-03 Publisher: Armature, Inc. (https://armature.tech) --- > LiteLLM was chosen in 18% of 140 judged AI gateways sessions, ranking third. It was also raised as a candidate in 86 further sessions without being chosen. This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor had to solve a problem in AI gateways inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about LiteLLM. What an agent actually installed. ## The numbers | | | | --- | --- | | Category | AI gateways | | Sessions in the category | 140 | | Sessions where LiteLLM was chosen | 25 | | Install share | 18% | | Rank in category | 3 of 8 | | Codebases it won in | 5 | | Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 86 | | Chosen when considered | 23% | | Site | litellm.ai | ## By agent The three agents treat LiteLLM very differently. Codex chose it in 23% of its sessions in this category and Claude Code in 7%, a spread of 16 points. | Agent | Sessions | Chose LiteLLM | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Claude Code | 45 | 3 | 7% | | Codex | 48 | 11 | 23% | | Cursor | 47 | 11 | 23% | A single blended install share would report the midpoint and hide both ends. If most of your users run Claude Code, your real position here is 7%, not 18%. ## By who was asking LiteLLM does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 29% of sessions asked as enterprise team and 0% of those asked as junior developer. | Who is asking | Sessions | Chose LiteLLM | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Vibe coder | 16 | 0 | 0% | | Junior developer | 33 | 0 | 0% | | Senior engineer | 56 | 15 | 27% | | Enterprise team | 35 | 10 | 29% | ## What LiteLLM was up against The full ranking in AI gateways, from the same sessions: | # | Product | Runs won | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Portkey | 30 | 21% | | 2 | Cloudflare AI Gateway | 30 | 21% | | 3 | LiteLLM **(this page)** | 25 | 18% | | 4 | Vercel AI Gateway | 22 | 16% | | 5 | OpenRouter | 15 | 11% | | 6 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 12 | 9% | | 7 | Amazon Bedrock | 3 | 2% | | 8 | Helicone | 1 | 1% | ## 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 140 sessions in AI gateways 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](/library/how-we-measured-this). Every AI gateways run can be replayed on [the board](/leaderboards/ai-gateway). If you work on LiteLLM: the judge recorded a reason for every session where it was raised and passed over. Those reasons are in the transcripts. ## Common questions ### Do coding agents recommend LiteLLM? Yes. LiteLLM was chosen in 25 of the 140 judged sessions in AI gateways, a 18% install share, ranking third in its category. ### Does Claude Code recommend LiteLLM? In 3 of the 45 sessions in AI gateways run with Claude Code, which is 7%. ### Do different coding agents treat LiteLLM differently? Yes, and by a wide margin. Codex chose it in 23% of its runs and Claude Code in 7%. ### 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 LiteLLM considered but not chosen? It was raised as a candidate in 86 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 25. That is a 23% conversion from considered to chosen. ## Read next - [How to get picked for AI gateways by coding agents](https://armature.tech/library/ai-gateway-coding-agents-playbook) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/ai-gateway-coding-agents-playbook.md) - [Do coding agents recommend Portkey?](https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-portkey) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-portkey.md) - [Do coding agents recommend Cloudflare AI Gateway?](https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-cloudflare-ai-gateway) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-cloudflare-ai-gateway.md) - [Do Claude Code, Codex and Cursor pick the same tools?](https://armature.tech/library/do-claude-code-and-codex-agree) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/do-claude-code-and-codex-agree.md) --- Armature helps software products get discovered and used by coding agents. Service: https://armature.tech/discoverability · Results: https://armature.tech/leaderboards/sectors · Contact: contact@armature.tech