Do coding agents recommend Aikido Security?
Aikido Security was chosen in 8% of 118 judged security platforms sessions, ranking fourth. Measured with Claude Code, Codex, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code.
Aikido Security was chosen in 8% of 118 judged security platforms sessions, ranking fourth. It was also raised as a candidate in 22 further sessions without being chosen.
This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code had to solve a problem in security platforms inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Aikido Security. What an agent actually chose.
The numbers
| Category | Security platforms |
| Sessions in the category | 118 |
| Sessions where Aikido Security was chosen | 9 |
| Install share | 8% |
| Rank in category | 4 of 19 |
| Codebases it won in | 3 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 22 |
| Chosen when considered | 29% |
| Site | aikido.dev |
By agent
With 9 wins spread across 4 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 Aikido Security | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 30 | 3 | 10% |
| Codex | 30 | 1 | 3% |
| Grok Build CLI | 30 | 5 | 17% |
| Muse Code | 28 | 0 | 0% |
What Aikido Security was up against
The full ranking in security platforms, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Checkmarx One | 39 | 33% |
| 2 | GitLab Security | 22 | 19% |
| 3 | Snyk | 19 | 16% |
| 4 | Aikido Security (this page) | 9 | 8% |
| 5 | HCL AppScan | 5 | 4% |
| 6 | GitHub Advanced Security + ZAP | 4 | 3% |
| 7 | GitHub Advanced Security + Microsoft Defender for Cloud | 3 | 3% |
| 8 | DefectDojo + Gitleaks + Semgrep + Trivy + ZAP | 3 | 3% |
What this means
Aikido Security was raised in 22 sessions and chosen in 9. That ratio is balanced enough that the ceiling is presence rather than integration: the product converts reasonably when it is on the table, and it is not on the table often enough.
Where these numbers come from
The 118 sessions in security platforms are part of a published set of 15,000, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.
Every security platforms run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Aikido Security: 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 Aikido Security?
Yes. Aikido Security was chosen in 9 of the 118 judged sessions in security platforms, a 8% install share, ranking fourth in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Aikido Security?
In 3 of the 30 sessions in security platforms run with Claude Code, which is 10%.
Do different coding agents treat Aikido Security differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Grok Build CLI chose it in 17% of its runs and Codex in 3%.
How was this measured?
Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 92 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 Aikido Security considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 22 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 9. That is a 29% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 15,000 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code inside 92 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.