Do coding agents recommend Promptfoo?
Promptfoo was chosen in 13% of 288 judged evals sessions, ranking second. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor.
Promptfoo was chosen in 13% of 288 judged evals sessions, ranking second. It was also raised as a candidate in 91 further sessions without being chosen.
This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor had to solve a problem in evals inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Promptfoo. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Evals |
| Sessions in the category | 288 |
| Sessions where Promptfoo was chosen | 38 |
| Install share | 13% |
| Rank in category | 2 of 9 |
| Codebases it won in | 2 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 91 |
| Chosen when considered | 29% |
| Site | promptfoo.dev |
By agent
The three agents land within 12 points of each other on Promptfoo, which is closer than most products in this experiment manage.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Promptfoo | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 96 | 18 | 19% |
| Codex | 96 | 7 | 7% |
| Cursor | 96 | 13 | 14% |
By who was asking
Promptfoo does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 25% of sessions asked as senior engineer and 1% of those asked as junior developer.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Promptfoo | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Junior developer | 145 | 2 | 1% |
| Senior engineer | 143 | 36 | 25% |
What Promptfoo was up against
The full ranking in evals, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Langfuse | 97 | 34% |
| 2 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 84 | 29% |
| 3 | Promptfoo (this page) | 38 | 13% |
| 4 | Arize Phoenix | 23 | 8% |
| 5 | Braintrust | 18 | 6% |
| 6 | Inspect AI | 12 | 4% |
| 7 | LangSmith | 8 | 3% |
| 8 | Helicone | 6 | 2% |
What this means
Promptfoo was raised in 91 sessions and chosen in 38. That ratio is balanced enough that the ceiling is presence rather than integration: the product converts reasonably when it is on the table, and it is not on the table often enough.
Where these numbers come from
The 288 sessions in evals 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.
Every evals run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Promptfoo: 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 Promptfoo?
Yes. Promptfoo was chosen in 38 of the 288 judged sessions in evals, a 13% install share, ranking second in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Promptfoo?
In 18 of the 96 sessions in evals run with Claude Code, which is 19%.
Do different coding agents treat Promptfoo differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Claude Code chose it in 19% of its runs and Codex 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 Promptfoo considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 91 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 38. That is a 29% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 5,292 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor inside 51 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.