How to get picked for e-signature by coding agents
Dropbox Sign took 30% of 106 judged e-signature sessions. What the numbers say a vendor in this category should do.
If you sell e-signature services, this page is the part of the market no dashboard shows you: what a coding agent does when a developer asks for e-signature and never compares vendors.
The numbers come from 106 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor, spread across 9 realistic codebases, with every session read by a judge.
What coding agents choose for e-signature
Across 106 judged sessions, Dropbox Sign was chosen most often, in 30% of runs. DocuSign was second with 29%.
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dropbox Sign | 32 | 30% |
| 2 | DocuSign | 31 | 29% |
| 3 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 11 | 10% |
| 4 | Microsoft 365 eSignature | 9 | 8% |
| 5 | YouTrust | 9 | 8% |
| 6 | Signable | 5 | 5% |
| 7 | Adobe Acrobat Sign | 3 | 3% |
| 8 | Documenso | 3 | 3% |
| 9 | Namirial | 2 | 2% |
| 10 | SignWell | 1 | 1% |
Full board, every run replayable: the e-signature leaderboard.
What the shape of this category means
The leader takes only 30% of runs. This category is genuinely open and the ordering can be moved.
With the top product at 30%, e-signature is decided in the moment, from what the agent reads and what it finds in the repository. Nothing is locked in, which is the best situation a vendor can be in and the one where the work pays fastest.
The order here is set by the quality of what an agent can read and by whether your product is already present in the codebase. Both are things you can change.
The agents do not agree with each other
In this category the three agents we ran put different products first.
| Agent | Runs | Picked most often |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 35 | DocuSign (11) |
| Codex | 35 | Dropbox Sign (14) |
| Cursor | 36 | DocuSign (9) |
That split decides where a vendor spends. Codex ran a web search in 53% of decision runs and Claude Code in 1.6%, so the pages you publish are live in half of Codex's e-signature sessions and almost none of Claude Code's. Taking Dropbox Sign's position with Codex is a content problem. Taking DocuSign's with Claude Code is a repository problem.
Who is asking changes the answer
Every request in this experiment was written as a specific kind of person. In this category the leader changes with the person.
| Who is asking | Runs | Picked most often |
|---|---|---|
| Junior developer | 58 | DocuSign |
| Senior engineer | 24 | Dropbox Sign |
| Enterprise team | 24 | Dropbox Sign |
That is 2 different products winning e-signature for 3 kinds of buyer, out of the same 106 sessions. Nobody here is winning e-signature. They are each winning one kind of buyer.
If you sell to more than one of them, you need pages for each. See how to win the enterprise persona.
What you are really competing against
In 10% of runs the agent wrote the code itself rather than adopting a product. That is low enough that your competition is other vendors, but high enough to be worth watching.
Considered, and never chosen
Because the judge records every product an agent raised and not only the one it picked, this board also shows who kept reaching the shortlist and losing. In e-signature the clearest case is PandaDoc: on the table in 60 sessions, chosen in none.
| Product | Raised in | Chosen in |
|---|---|---|
| PandaDoc | 60 sessions | 0 |
| Scrive | 20 sessions | 0 |
Being rejected is a better position than being unknown, and a cheaper one to fix. The product is already in the agent's head and on the list. Whatever ended those 80 sessions is recorded in each transcript, one reason at a time.
What to do about it in e-signature
- Aim at second place first. Dropbox Sign holds 30% and DocuSign holds 29%. The gap between the default and the field is where the reachable sessions are.
- Report install share per persona, not as one number. In e-signature the leader changes with who is asking, so a blended figure averages markets that behave differently.
- Measure per agent. Claude Code put DocuSign first, Codex put Dropbox Sign first, Cursor put DocuSign first. A blended number for e-signature describes a market that does not exist.
The work that applies to every category rather than to this one is written up separately: audit your documentation, write a quickstart an agent can follow, and how to measure install share.
Every e-signature service on this board
One page per product, with its install share, the per-agent split, and how often it was raised without being chosen.
- Do coding agents recommend Dropbox Sign? — chosen in 30% of sessions
- Do coding agents recommend DocuSign? — chosen in 29% of sessions
- Do coding agents recommend Microsoft 365 eSignature? — chosen in 8% of sessions
- Do coding agents recommend YouTrust? — chosen in 8% of sessions
- Do coding agents recommend PandaDoc? — raised in 60 sessions, chosen in none
Where these numbers come from
106 judged sessions in e-signature across 9 codebases, part of a published set of 7,958. Real coding agents at pinned versions, in sandboxes, inside realistic codebases, with a simulated project owner in the loop and a blind judge on every session. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.
Every e-signature run can be replayed on the board.
<!-- generated by scripts/write-data-pages.mjs -->
Common questions
How many codebases is this based on?
106 judged sessions across 9 realistic codebases. A category only runs on repositories where its seam is open, so coverage differs: some categories ran on more than ten codebases and some on two.
What e-signature service do coding agents choose?
Across 106 judged sessions, Dropbox Sign was chosen most often, in 30% of runs. DocuSign was second with 29%. The result changes by agent and by who is asking.
Do Claude Code and Codex pick the same e-signature service?
No. Claude Code picked DocuSign, Codex picked Dropbox Sign, Cursor picked DocuSign. Measuring one agent tells you about part of the market only.
How often do agents build e-signature themselves instead of installing something?
In 10% of runs the agent wrote the code itself rather than adopting a product.
How can a vendor improve its position here?
Make the quickstart run when pasted, state the current version on the documentation page, use one name across product, package and import, write pages for the symptoms users describe rather than only the category name, and get into the repository through templates and framework integrations.
Which e-signature services do agents consider but never choose?
PandaDoc (raised in 60 sessions, chosen in none), Scrive (raised in 20 sessions, chosen in none). Being considered and not chosen is a different problem from being unknown, and it is usually fixable.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 7,958 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor inside 91 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.