Do coding agents recommend Metronome?
Metronome is the most chosen usage-based billing platform, taking 41% of 548 judged usage-based billing sessions.
Metronome is the most chosen usage-based billing platform, taking 41% of 548 judged usage-based billing sessions. It was also raised as a candidate in 255 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 usage-based billing inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Metronome. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Usage-based billing |
| Sessions in the category | 548 |
| Sessions where Metronome was chosen | 225 |
| Install share | 41% |
| Rank in category | 1 of 16 |
| Codebases it won in | 9 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 255 |
| Chosen when considered | 47% |
| Site | metronome.com |
By agent
The agents treat Metronome very differently. Cursor chose it in 50% of its sessions in this category and Muse Code in 16%, a spread of 34 points. Grok Build CLI ran fewer than 30 sessions here, too few to compare.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Metronome | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 127 | 46 | 36% |
| Codex | 164 | 81 | 49% |
| Cursor | 132 | 66 | 50% |
| Grok Build CLI | 26 | 16 | 62% |
| Muse Code | 99 | 16 | 16% |
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 16%, not 41%.
By who was asking
Metronome performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 36% to 48%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 23 of the 31 categories we measured.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Metronome | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Junior developer | 100 | 48 | 48% |
| Senior engineer | 202 | 88 | 44% |
| Enterprise team | 246 | 89 | 36% |
What Metronome was up against
The full ranking in usage-based billing, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Metronome (this page) | 225 | 41% |
| 2 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 107 | 20% |
| 3 | Orb | 88 | 16% |
| 4 | Lago | 62 | 11% |
| 5 | Stripe Billing | 13 | 2% |
| 6 | CGRateS | 13 | 2% |
| 7 | OpenMeter | 9 | 2% |
| 8 | Oracle BRM | 7 | 1% |
What this means
Leading a category is a position to defend rather than a result to celebrate. In our data, leaders lose ground in exactly two situations: when the person asking is an enterprise buyer with procurement constraints, and when a competitor's documentation is easier for an agent to integrate correctly.
The defence is unglamorous. Keep the quickstart running. Keep the version current on the page. Keep the names aligned. Stay in the templates.
Where these numbers come from
The 548 sessions in usage-based billing 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 usage-based billing run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Metronome: 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 Metronome?
Yes. Metronome was chosen in 225 of the 548 judged sessions in usage-based billing, a 41% install share, ranking first in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Metronome?
In 46 of the 127 sessions in usage-based billing run with Claude Code, which is 36%.
Do different coding agents treat Metronome differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Cursor chose it in 50% of its runs and Muse Code in 16%.
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 Metronome considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 255 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 225. That is a 47% 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.