Do coding agents recommend Arctic?
Arctic was chosen in 2% of 724 judged authentication sessions, ranking ninth. Measured with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code.
Arctic was chosen in 2% of 724 judged authentication sessions, ranking ninth. It was also raised as a candidate in 25 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 Arctic. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Authentication |
| Sessions in the category | 724 |
| Sessions where Arctic was chosen | 11 |
| Install share | 2% |
| Rank in category | 9 of 28 |
| Codebases it won in | 2 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 25 |
| Chosen when considered | 31% |
| Site | arcticjs.dev |
By agent
With 11 wins spread across 5 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 Arctic | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 133 | 5 | 4% |
| Codex | 204 | 0 | 0% |
| Cursor | 133 | 1 | 1% |
| Grok Build CLI | 50 | 2 | 4% |
| Muse Code | 204 | 3 | 1% |
By who was asking
Arctic performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 0% to 11%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 23 of the 31 categories we measured.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Arctic | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 98 | 11 | 11% |
| Junior developer | 223 | 0 | 0% |
| Senior engineer | 243 | 0 | 0% |
| Enterprise team | 160 | 0 | 0% |
What Arctic was up against
The full ranking in authentication, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Auth0 | 180 | 25% |
| 2 | WorkOS AuthKit | 131 | 18% |
| 3 | Clerk | 86 | 12% |
| 4 | Microsoft Entra ID | 80 | 11% |
| 5 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 65 | 9% |
| 6 | Better Auth | 29 | 4% |
| 7 | Amazon Cognito | 23 | 3% |
| 8 | Keycloak | 22 | 3% |
What this means
Arctic was raised in 25 sessions and chosen in 11. 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 724 sessions in authentication 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 authentication run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Arctic: 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 Arctic?
Yes. Arctic was chosen in 11 of the 724 judged sessions in authentication, a 2% install share, ranking ninth in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Arctic?
In 5 of the 133 sessions in authentication run with Claude Code, which is 4%.
Do different coding agents treat Arctic differently?
Not much. Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code chose it at similar rates, between 0% and 4% of their runs.
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 Arctic considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 25 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 11. That is a 31% 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.