Do coding agents recommend Supabase?
Supabase was chosen in 37% of 732 judged databases sessions, ranking second. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor.
Supabase was chosen in 37% of 732 judged databases sessions, ranking second. It was also raised as a candidate in 330 further sessions without being chosen.
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 Supabase. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Databases |
| Sessions in the category | 732 |
| Sessions where Supabase was chosen | 269 |
| Install share | 37% |
| Rank in category | 2 of 19 |
| Codebases it won in | 15 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 330 |
| Chosen when considered | 45% |
| Site | supabase.com |
By agent
The agents treat Supabase very differently. Codex chose it in 52% of its sessions in this category and Claude Code in 32%, a spread of 20 points.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Supabase | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 380 | 120 | 32% |
| Codex | 181 | 95 | 52% |
| Cursor | 171 | 54 | 32% |
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 32%, not 37%.
By who was asking
Supabase does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 46% of sessions asked as vibe coder and 0% of those asked as enterprise team.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Supabase | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 417 | 193 | 46% |
| Junior developer | 163 | 71 | 44% |
| Senior engineer | 113 | 3 | 3% |
| Enterprise team | 24 | 0 | 0% |
What Supabase was up against
The full ranking in databases, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Neon | 334 | 46% |
| 2 | Supabase (this page) | 269 | 37% |
| 3 | Turso | 48 | 7% |
| 4 | Azure Database for PostgreSQL Flexible Server | 21 | 3% |
| 5 | Firebase | 17 | 2% |
| 6 | Google Sheets | 10 | 1% |
| 7 | Netlify Forms | 6 | 1% |
| 8 | Formspree | 4 | 1% |
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 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 Supabase: 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 Supabase?
Yes. Supabase was chosen in 269 of the 732 judged sessions in databases, a 37% install share, ranking second in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Supabase?
In 120 of the 380 sessions in databases run with Claude Code, which is 32%.
Do different coding agents treat Supabase differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Codex chose it in 52% of its runs and Claude Code in 32%.
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 Supabase considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 330 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 269. That is a 45% 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.