From the experiment

Do coding agents recommend Auth0?

Auth0 is the most chosen authentication provider, taking 25% of 724 judged authentication sessions.

Published October 14, 2026 Read as Markdown

Auth0 is the most chosen authentication provider, taking 25% of 724 judged authentication sessions. 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 authentication inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Auth0. What an agent actually installed.

The numbers

CategoryAuthentication
Sessions in the category724
Sessions where Auth0 was chosen180
Install share25%
Rank in category1 of 28
Codebases it won in10
Raised as a candidate, not chosen352
Chosen when considered34%
Siteauth0.com

By agent

Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code land within 13 points of each other on Auth0, which is closer than most products in this experiment manage.

AgentSessionsChose Auth0Share
Claude Code1332519%
Codex2046331%
Cursor1332418%
Grok Build CLI50918%
Muse Code2045929%

By who was asking

Auth0 does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 37% of sessions asked as senior engineer and 0% of those asked as vibe coder.

Who is askingSessionsChose Auth0Share
Vibe coder9800%
Junior developer2238036%
Senior engineer2439037%
Enterprise team160106%

What Auth0 was up against

The full ranking in authentication, from the same sessions:

#ProductRuns wonShare
1Auth0 (this page)18025%
2WorkOS AuthKit13118%
3Clerk8612%
4Microsoft Entra ID8011%
5Built in-house (no product adopted)659%
6Better Auth294%
7Amazon Cognito233%
8Keycloak223%

What this means

Leading a category is a position to defend rather than a result to celebrate. In our data, leaders lose ground in exactly two situations: when the person asking is an enterprise buyer with procurement constraints, and when a competitor's documentation is easier for an agent to integrate correctly.

The defence is unglamorous. Keep the quickstart running. Keep the version current on the page. Keep the names aligned. Stay in the templates.

Where these numbers come from

The 724 sessions in authentication are part of a published set of 15,287, 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 180 of the 724 judged sessions in authentication, a 25% install share, ranking first in its category.

Does Claude Code recommend Auth0?

In 25 of the 133 sessions in authentication run with Claude Code, which is 19%.

Do different coding agents treat Auth0 differently?

Yes, and by a wide margin. Codex chose it in 31% of its runs and Cursor in 18%.

How was this measured?

Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 110 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 352 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 180. That is a 34% conversion from considered to chosen.

Where this comes from

Armature ran 15,287 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code inside 110 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.

Read next

All library pages