Do coding agents recommend Render?
Render was chosen in 38% of 508 judged deployment sessions, ranking second. Measured with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code.
Render was chosen in 38% of 508 judged deployment sessions, ranking second. It was also raised as a candidate in 209 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 deployment inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Render. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Deployment |
| Sessions in the category | 508 |
| Sessions where Render was chosen | 193 |
| Install share | 38% |
| Rank in category | 2 of 10 |
| Codebases it won in | 5 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 209 |
| Chosen when considered | 48% |
| Site | render.com |
By agent
The agents treat Render very differently. Codex chose it in 45% of its sessions in this category and Claude Code in 30%, a spread of 15 points.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Render | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 120 | 36 | 30% |
| Codex | 150 | 67 | 45% |
| Cursor | 119 | 41 | 34% |
| Grok Build CLI | 30 | 12 | 40% |
| Muse Code | 89 | 37 | 42% |
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 30%, not 38%.
By who was asking
Render performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 35% to 41%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 24 of the 31 categories we measured.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Render | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 254 | 89 | 35% |
| Senior engineer | 254 | 104 | 41% |
What Render was up against
The full ranking in deployment, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vercel | 197 | 39% |
| 2 | Render (this page) | 193 | 38% |
| 3 | Cloudflare | 59 | 12% |
| 4 | GitHub Pages | 26 | 5% |
| 5 | Railway | 17 | 3% |
| 6 | Netlify | 9 | 2% |
| 7 | Fly.io | 4 | 1% |
| 8 | Google Cloud | 1 | 0% |
What this means
A solid second or third position in a category means the agent is genuinely choosing rather than reaching automatically. That is a winnable position, because the inputs it uses can be changed.
The fastest gains are usually in the sessions that were nearly won: read them, find the step where the agent moved on, and fix that step.
Where these numbers come from
The 508 sessions in deployment 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 deployment run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Render: 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 Render?
Yes. Render was chosen in 193 of the 508 judged sessions in deployment, a 38% install share, ranking second in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Render?
In 36 of the 120 sessions in deployment run with Claude Code, which is 30%.
Do different coding agents treat Render differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Codex chose it in 45% of its runs and Claude Code in 30%.
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 Render considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 209 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 193. That is a 48% 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.