From the experiment

Do coding agents recommend Amazon Cognito?

Amazon Cognito was chosen in 3% of 656 judged authentication sessions, ranking sixth. Measured with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code.

Published September 24, 2026 Read as Markdown

Amazon Cognito was chosen in 3% of 656 judged authentication sessions, ranking sixth. It was also raised as a candidate in 37 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 authentication inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Amazon Cognito. What an agent actually installed.

The numbers

CategoryAuthentication
Sessions in the category656
Sessions where Amazon Cognito was chosen20
Install share3%
Rank in category6 of 28
Codebases it won in3
Raised as a candidate, not chosen37
Chosen when considered35%
Siteaws.amazon.com

By agent

Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code land within 7 points of each other on Amazon Cognito, which is closer than most products in this experiment manage.

AgentSessionsChose Amazon CognitoShare
Claude Code13300%
Codex13611%
Cursor13343%
Grok Build CLI5000%
Muse Code204157%

By who was asking

Amazon Cognito performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 0% to 8%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 22 of the 29 categories we measured.

Who is askingSessionsChose Amazon CognitoShare
Vibe coder8900%
Junior developer20200%
Senior engineer22094%
Enterprise team145118%

What Amazon Cognito was up against

The full ranking in authentication, from the same sessions:

#ProductRuns wonShare
1Auth015724%
2WorkOS AuthKit12519%
3Clerk7812%
4Microsoft Entra ID7311%
5Built in-house (no product adopted)609%
6Better Auth264%
7Amazon Cognito (this page)203%
8Keycloak193%

What this means

Amazon Cognito was raised in 37 sessions and chosen in 20. 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 656 sessions in authentication are part of a published set of 13,497, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.

Every authentication run can be replayed on the board.

If you work on Amazon Cognito: 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 Amazon Cognito?

Yes. Amazon Cognito was chosen in 20 of the 656 judged sessions in authentication, a 3% install share, ranking sixth in its category.

Does Claude Code recommend Amazon Cognito?

In 0 of the 133 sessions in authentication run with Claude Code, which is 0%.

Do different coding agents treat Amazon Cognito differently?

Not much. Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code chose it at similar rates, between 0% and 7% of their runs.

How was this measured?

Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 91 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 Amazon Cognito considered but not chosen?

It was raised as a candidate in 37 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 20. That is a 35% conversion from considered to chosen.

Where this comes from

Armature ran 13,497 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code inside 91 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.

Read next

All library pages