Do coding agents recommend Reducto?
Reducto was chosen in 4% of 360 judged document processing sessions, ranking seventh. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor.
Reducto was chosen in 4% of 360 judged document processing sessions, ranking seventh. It was also raised as a candidate in 112 further sessions without being chosen.
This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor had to solve a problem in document processing inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Reducto. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Document processing |
| Sessions in the category | 360 |
| Sessions where Reducto was chosen | 13 |
| Install share | 4% |
| Rank in category | 7 of 30 |
| Codebases it won in | 6 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 112 |
| Chosen when considered | 10% |
| Site | reducto.ai |
By agent
With 13 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 Reducto | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 120 | 3 | 3% |
| Codex | 120 | 2 | 2% |
| Cursor | 120 | 8 | 7% |
By who was asking
Reducto performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 0% to 7%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 21 of the 26 categories we measured.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Reducto | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 30 | 0 | 0% |
| Junior developer | 180 | 5 | 3% |
| Senior engineer | 120 | 8 | 7% |
| Enterprise team | 30 | 0 | 0% |
What Reducto was up against
The full ranking in document processing, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Anthropic Claude | 87 | 24% |
| 2 | Azure AI Document Intelligence | 76 | 21% |
| 3 | Amazon Textract | 37 | 10% |
| 4 | Google Cloud Document AI | 31 | 9% |
| 5 | Google Gemini | 17 | 5% |
| 6 | Ocrolus | 15 | 4% |
| 7 | Reducto (this page) | 13 | 4% |
| 8 | Azure AI Content Understanding | 11 | 3% |
What this means
This is an integration problem, not a presence problem. Agents raised Reducto in 112 sessions and chose it in 13, 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 360 sessions in document processing are part of a published set of 7,385, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.
Every document processing run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Reducto: 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 Reducto?
Yes. Reducto was chosen in 13 of the 360 judged sessions in document processing, a 4% install share, ranking seventh in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Reducto?
In 3 of the 120 sessions in document processing run with Claude Code, which is 3%.
Do different coding agents treat Reducto differently?
Not much. The three agents chose it at similar rates, between 2% and 7% of their runs.
How was this measured?
Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 84 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 Reducto considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 112 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 13. That is a 10% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 7,385 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor inside 84 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.