From the experiment

Do coding agents recommend PlanetScale?

Coding agents raised PlanetScale in 100 of 732 judged databases sessions and chose it in none of them. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor.

Published October 14, 2026 Read as Markdown

Coding agents raised PlanetScale in 100 of 732 judged databases sessions and chose it in none of them.

This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor had to solve a problem in databases inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about PlanetScale. What an agent actually installed.

The numbers

CategoryDatabases
Sessions in the category732
Sessions where PlanetScale was chosen0
Install share0%
Raised as a candidate, not chosen100
Chosen when considered0%
Siteplanetscale.com

Which agents raised PlanetScale

Claude Code and Cursor considered it and none adopted it. Cursor raised it most often, in 35% of its databases sessions.

AgentSessionsRaised PlanetScaleChose it
Claude Code38041 (11%)0
Codex1810 (0%)0
Cursor17159 (35%)0

Which buyers it came up for

It surfaced most for requests written as senior engineer, in 19% of those sessions. Knowing which buyer already has the product in mind tells you which pages to fix first.

Who is askingSessionsRaised it
Vibe coder41754 (13%)
Junior developer16324 (15%)
Senior engineer11321 (19%)
Enterprise team240 (0%)

What PlanetScale was up against

The full ranking in databases, from the same sessions:

#ProductRuns wonShare
1Neon33446%
2Supabase26937%
3Turso487%
4Azure Database for PostgreSQL Flexible Server213%
5Firebase172%
6Google Sheets101%
7Netlify Forms61%
8Formspree41%

What this means

Raised 100 times and chosen none is a specific, diagnosable result, and a better starting position than being unknown. The agent has the product in mind. It reached the shortlist 100 times. Something then lost every one of those sessions.

In our data the causes, in the order they occur:

  • The quickstart does not run when pasted, so the agent abandoned it mid-integration.
  • The documentation describes an interface that changed, so the generated code failed.
  • The product name and the package name differ, so the install step went wrong.
  • The fit was genuinely wrong for the repository, which is fine and worth knowing.

All but the last are fixable in days, and the reason is written down in the session transcript.

Where these numbers come from

The 732 sessions in databases 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 databases run can be replayed on the board.

If you work on PlanetScale: 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 PlanetScale?

They raise it but do not choose it. Across 100 sessions where PlanetScale came up as a candidate, agents chose something else every time.

Does Claude Code recommend PlanetScale?

In 0 of the 380 sessions in databases run with Claude Code, which is 0%.

Do different coding agents treat PlanetScale differently?

Not much. Claude Code, Codex and Cursor chose it at similar rates, between 0% and 0% 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.

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.

Read next

All library pages