Do coding agents recommend Auth0?
Auth0 was chosen in 23% of 201 judged authentication sessions, ranking second. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor.
Auth0 was chosen in 23% of 201 judged authentication sessions, ranking second. It was also raised as a candidate in 120 further sessions without being chosen.
This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor had to solve a problem in authentication inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Auth0. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Authentication |
| Sessions in the category | 201 |
| Sessions where Auth0 was chosen | 46 |
| Install share | 23% |
| Rank in category | 2 of 17 |
| Codebases it won in | 10 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 120 |
| Chosen when considered | 28% |
| Site | auth0.com |
By agent
The three agents land within 12 points of each other on Auth0, which is closer than most products in this experiment manage.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Auth0 | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 65 | 11 | 17% |
| Codex | 68 | 20 | 29% |
| Cursor | 68 | 15 | 22% |
By who was asking
Auth0 does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 38% of sessions asked as senior engineer and 0% of those asked as vibe coder.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Auth0 | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 26 | 0 | 0% |
| Junior developer | 62 | 17 | 27% |
| Senior engineer | 69 | 26 | 38% |
| Enterprise team | 44 | 3 | 7% |
What Auth0 was up against
The full ranking in authentication, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WorkOS AuthKit | 53 | 26% |
| 2 | Auth0 (this page) | 46 | 23% |
| 3 | Microsoft Entra ID | 21 | 10% |
| 4 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 21 | 10% |
| 5 | Clerk | 20 | 10% |
| 6 | Better Auth | 8 | 4% |
| 7 | Keycloak | 7 | 3% |
| 8 | Google Identity | 3 | 1% |
What this means
A solid second or third position in a category means the agent is genuinely choosing rather than reaching automatically. That is a winnable position, because the inputs it uses can be changed.
The fastest gains are usually in the sessions that were nearly won: read them, find the step where the agent moved on, and fix that step.
Where these numbers come from
The 201 sessions in authentication are part of a published set of 5,292, 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 Auth0: 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 Auth0?
Yes. Auth0 was chosen in 46 of the 201 judged sessions in authentication, a 23% install share, ranking second in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Auth0?
In 11 of the 65 sessions in authentication run with Claude Code, which is 17%.
Do different coding agents treat Auth0 differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Codex chose it in 29% of its runs and Claude Code in 17%.
How was this measured?
Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 51 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 Auth0 considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 120 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 46. That is a 28% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 5,292 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor inside 51 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.