Do coding agents recommend Amazon SQS?
Amazon SQS was chosen in 11% of 636 judged message queues sessions, ranking second. Measured with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code.
Amazon SQS was chosen in 11% of 636 judged message queues sessions, ranking second. It was also raised as a candidate in 352 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 message queues inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Amazon SQS. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Message queues |
| Sessions in the category | 636 |
| Sessions where Amazon SQS was chosen | 72 |
| Install share | 11% |
| Rank in category | 2 of 29 |
| Codebases it won in | 6 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 352 |
| Chosen when considered | 17% |
| Site | aws.amazon.com |
By agent
Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code land within 12 points of each other on Amazon SQS, which is closer than most products in this experiment manage.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Amazon SQS | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 138 | 7 | 5% |
| Codex | 192 | 32 | 17% |
| Cursor | 134 | 10 | 7% |
| Grok Build CLI | 35 | 3 | 9% |
| Muse Code | 137 | 20 | 15% |
By who was asking
Amazon SQS does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 17% of sessions asked as enterprise team and 2% of those asked as junior developer.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Amazon SQS | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 104 | 14 | 13% |
| Junior developer | 207 | 5 | 2% |
| Senior engineer | 107 | 17 | 16% |
| Enterprise team | 218 | 36 | 17% |
What Amazon SQS was up against
The full ranking in message queues, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 106 | 17% |
| 2 | Apache Kafka | 83 | 13% |
| 3 | Amazon SQS (this page) | 72 | 11% |
| 4 | Service Bus | 53 | 8% |
| 5 | Amazon Kinesis | 45 | 7% |
| 6 | Laravel Queues | 43 | 7% |
| 7 | Cloud Tasks | 40 | 6% |
| 8 | Cloudflare Queues | 35 | 6% |
What this means
This is an integration problem, not a presence problem. Agents raised Amazon SQS in 352 sessions and chose it in 72, so it reaches the shortlist and then loses. Something at the last step is costing the session, and in our data that is usually a quickstart that does not run when pasted, documentation describing an interface that changed, or a package name that does not match the product name.
That is the cheaper of the two problems to have. The reason is written down in each losing transcript.
Where these numbers come from
The 636 sessions in message queues are part of a published set of 15,051, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.
Every message queues run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Amazon SQS: 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 SQS?
Yes. Amazon SQS was chosen in 72 of the 636 judged sessions in message queues, a 11% install share, ranking second in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Amazon SQS?
In 7 of the 138 sessions in message queues run with Claude Code, which is 5%.
Do different coding agents treat Amazon SQS differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Codex chose it in 17% of its runs and Claude Code in 5%.
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 Amazon SQS considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 352 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 72. That is a 17% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 15,051 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.