Do coding agents recommend PostHog?
PostHog is the most chosen product analytics tool, taking 56% of 598 judged product analytics sessions.
PostHog is the most chosen product analytics tool, taking 56% of 598 judged product analytics sessions. It was also raised as a candidate in 180 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 product analytics inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about PostHog. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Product analytics |
| Sessions in the category | 598 |
| Sessions where PostHog was chosen | 332 |
| Install share | 56% |
| Rank in category | 1 of 20 |
| Codebases it won in | 10 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 180 |
| Chosen when considered | 65% |
| Site | posthog.com |
By agent
The agents treat PostHog very differently. Muse Code chose it in 62% of its sessions in this category and Claude Code in 46%, a spread of 16 points. Grok Build CLI ran fewer than 30 sessions here, too few to compare.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose PostHog | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 150 | 69 | 46% |
| Codex | 180 | 104 | 58% |
| Cursor | 149 | 89 | 60% |
| Grok Build CLI | 29 | 14 | 48% |
| Muse Code | 90 | 56 | 62% |
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 46%, not 56%.
By who was asking
PostHog does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 93% of sessions asked as junior developer and 25% of those asked as enterprise team.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose PostHog | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 60 | 21 | 35% |
| Junior developer | 240 | 222 | 93% |
| Senior engineer | 238 | 74 | 31% |
| Enterprise team | 60 | 15 | 25% |
What PostHog was up against
The full ranking in product analytics, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PostHog (this page) | 332 | 56% |
| 2 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 82 | 14% |
| 3 | Metabase | 37 | 6% |
| 4 | Vercel Analytics | 27 | 5% |
| 5 | Mixpanel | 19 | 3% |
| 6 | Amplitude | 19 | 3% |
| 7 | Segment | 18 | 3% |
| 8 | Looker Studio | 12 | 2% |
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 598 sessions in product analytics 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 product analytics run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on PostHog: 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 PostHog?
Yes. PostHog was chosen in 332 of the 598 judged sessions in product analytics, a 56% install share, ranking first in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend PostHog?
In 69 of the 150 sessions in product analytics run with Claude Code, which is 46%.
Do different coding agents treat PostHog differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Muse Code chose it in 62% of its runs and Claude Code in 46%.
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.
How often is PostHog considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 180 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 332. That is a 65% conversion from considered to chosen.
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.