Do coding agents recommend MapTiler?
MapTiler was chosen in 5% of 319 judged maps sessions, ranking eighth. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor.
MapTiler was chosen in 5% of 319 judged maps sessions, ranking eighth. It was also raised as a candidate in 134 further sessions without being chosen.
This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor had to solve a problem in maps inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about MapTiler. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Maps |
| Sessions in the category | 319 |
| Sessions where MapTiler was chosen | 15 |
| Install share | 5% |
| Rank in category | 8 of 32 |
| Codebases it won in | 6 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 134 |
| Chosen when considered | 10% |
| Site | maptiler.com |
By agent
With 15 wins spread across three 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 MapTiler | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 108 | 5 | 5% |
| Codex | 111 | 3 | 3% |
| Cursor | 100 | 7 | 7% |
By who was asking
MapTiler performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 4% to 6%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 19 of the 23 categories we measured.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose MapTiler | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 64 | 4 | 6% |
| Junior developer | 147 | 6 | 4% |
| Senior engineer | 72 | 3 | 4% |
| Enterprise team | 36 | 2 | 6% |
What MapTiler was up against
The full ranking in maps, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Google Maps | 52 | 16% |
| 2 | Leaflet | 52 | 16% |
| 3 | Apple Maps (MapKit) | 46 | 14% |
| 4 | Mapbox | 25 | 8% |
| 5 | MapLibre | 21 | 7% |
| 6 | react-native-maps | 19 | 6% |
| 7 | Azure Maps | 18 | 6% |
| 8 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 16 | 5% |
What this means
This is an integration problem, not a presence problem. Agents raised MapTiler in 134 sessions and chose it in 15, 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 319 sessions in maps are part of a published set of 6,458, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.
Every maps run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on MapTiler: 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 MapTiler?
Yes. MapTiler was chosen in 15 of the 319 judged sessions in maps, a 5% install share, ranking eighth in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend MapTiler?
In 5 of the 108 sessions in maps run with Claude Code, which is 5%.
Do different coding agents treat MapTiler differently?
Not much. The three agents chose it at similar rates, between 3% and 7% of their runs.
How was this measured?
Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 63 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 MapTiler considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 134 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 15. That is a 10% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 6,458 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor inside 63 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.