Companies Using Django

The most evenly distributed framework we measure

Almost every technology in our corpus concentrates somewhere. American platforms show half their base in the United States; SvelteKit clusters in northern Europe; Klarna is European-first. Django concentrates nowhere.

The United States accounts for 20.59% of matched companies. Germany takes 7.58%, India 6.22%, Brazil 5.64% and the United Kingdom 5.43%. The tail beyond that is long and flat. No single market dominates and no region carries the framework, which is a genuinely unusual shape and one that follows Python's own distribution: taught in universities worldwide, used across scientific and engineering computing, and adopted for web work by people who already knew the language.

The United States is 20.59% of Django's base and no other country exceeds 8%. Django is the only framework we track with no geographic centre of gravity.

What the count misses, and why it matters here more than usual

Django ranks 11th of 34 with 1.45% share. Two separate effects push that number down, and both should be stated before anyone reads the ranking as a verdict.

The first applies to the whole category: Microsoft ASP.NET holds 46.19% on an installed base accumulated since the early 2000s, so domain counts measure history as much as preference. The second is specific to Django. Its characteristic uses are the ones a crawler cannot reach: internal admin systems, authenticated portals, APIs serving a mobile client, back-office tools that never render a public page. Django ships an admin interface as a headline feature, which tells you what it is chosen for.

The result is that Django's web-visible footprint underrepresents its deployment more than most frameworks in this category, and the 26,793 figure should be read as a floor with an unusually large amount underneath it.

A business-systems base, visible in the size data

Companies with 1 to 10 employees are 52.99% of matched customers, which is high in absolute terms but low for an open-source framework. SvelteKit is 72.31% and GitHub Pages 79.11%. Django's 11 to 50 bracket takes 25.69%, 51 to 200 a further 12.12%, and organisations above 1,000 employees 2.83%, roughly double SvelteKit's share.

The industry tail says the same thing. Software, IT services and technology together are 17.40%, a lower concentration than most developer frameworks, while Real Estate appears at 3.12% and Retail at 2.71%. Those are not sectors that adopt frameworks for fashion; they adopt them for listings databases, inventory systems and customer portals. Django's ORM and admin are the reason, and the named list bears it out with BMO, Bank Mega, Lazada and Udemy all running applications rather than brochures.

Stable rather than moving

Django's switching data is the least dramatic in this batch, and that is the finding. We recorded 20 domains arriving from Microsoft ASP.NET against 24 leaving, 11 from Ruby on Rails against 19, 10 from Express against 16, and 7 from Nuxt.js against 21.

Slightly negative, small in every direction, and nothing resembling the one-sided flow we measured on Gatsby, where 656 domains left for Next.js against 38 arriving. A twenty-year-old framework running business systems does not churn quickly, because the cost of rewriting an application with real domain logic is nothing like the cost of rebuilding a marketing site. Since we began tracking Django in March 2026 we have watched 1,878 domains drop it against 26,793 active, a rate consistent with ordinary site turnover rather than migration.

Django loses and gains in single and double digits. Gatsby lost 656 domains to one framework. Applications with real domain logic do not get rebuilt on a design cycle.

A public-facing half

One number complicates the internal-systems reading usefully. Google Analytics appears on 58.46% of Django domains and Google Tag Manager on 58.43%, both far above SvelteKit's 17.70% and 18.85%.

Facebook Pixel at 17.32% points the same way. A substantial share of the Django sites we can see are public commercial properties being measured for acquisition, not internal tools. That is consistent with the ecommerce and education names in the list, and it means this list is not exclusively an engineering-audience play: a meaningful segment of it has a marketing function attached, which is worth knowing before deciding how to approach it.