# Do coding agents recommend Azure Monitor? > Azure Monitor was chosen in 2% of 503 judged observability sessions, ranking tenth. Measured with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code. Source: https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-azure-monitor Published: 2026-09-23 Publisher: Armature, Inc. (https://armature.tech) --- > Azure Monitor was chosen in 2% of 503 judged observability sessions, ranking tenth. It was also raised as a candidate in 12 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 observability inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Azure Monitor. What an agent actually installed. One thing to read first: every one of those wins came from a **single codebase**. That is a result about one repository rather than about observability in general, and the splits below cannot separate the two. Treat them as a description of that repository. ## The numbers | | | | --- | --- | | Category | Observability | | Sessions in the category | 503 | | Sessions where Azure Monitor was chosen | 9 | | Install share | 2% | | Rank in category | 10 of 20 | | Codebases it won in | 1 | | Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 12 | | Chosen when considered | 43% | | Site | azure.microsoft.com | ## By agent With 9 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 Azure Monitor | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Claude Code | 150 | 3 | 2% | | Codex | 150 | 3 | 2% | | Cursor | 150 | 2 | 1% | | Grok Build CLI | 24 | 1 | 4% | | Muse Code | 29 | 0 | 0% | ## By who was asking Azure Monitor performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 0% to 2%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 23 of the 29 categories we measured. | Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Azure Monitor | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Vibe coder | 17 | 0 | 0% | | Junior developer | 17 | 0 | 0% | | Senior engineer | 418 | 9 | 2% | | Enterprise team | 51 | 0 | 0% | ## What Azure Monitor was up against The full ranking in observability, from the same sessions: | # | Product | Runs won | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Sentry | 174 | 35% | | 2 | Grafana | 75 | 15% | | 3 | Amazon CloudWatch | 51 | 10% | | 4 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 33 | 7% | | 5 | Datadog | 23 | 5% | | 6 | Better Stack | 22 | 4% | | 7 | Checkly | 22 | 4% | | 8 | New Relic | 19 | 4% | ## What this means Azure Monitor was raised in 12 sessions and chosen in 9. 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 503 sessions in observability are part of a published set of 11,878, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: [how we measured this](/library/how-we-measured-this). Every observability run can be replayed on [the board](/leaderboards/observability). If you work on Azure Monitor: the judge recorded a reason for every session where it was raised and passed over. Those reasons are in the transcripts. ## Common questions ### Do coding agents recommend Azure Monitor? Yes. Azure Monitor was chosen in 9 of the 503 judged sessions in observability, a 2% install share, ranking tenth in its category. ### Does Claude Code recommend Azure Monitor? In 3 of the 150 sessions in observability run with Claude Code, which is 2%. ### Do different coding agents treat Azure Monitor differently? Not much. Claude Code, Codex and Cursor chose it at similar rates, between 1% and 2% 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 Azure Monitor considered but not chosen? It was raised as a candidate in 12 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 9. That is a 43% conversion from considered to chosen. ## Read next - [How to get picked for observability by coding agents](https://armature.tech/library/observability-coding-agents-playbook) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/observability-coding-agents-playbook.md) - [Do coding agents recommend Sentry?](https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-sentry) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-sentry.md) - [Do coding agents recommend Grafana?](https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-grafana) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-grafana.md) - [Do Claude Code, Codex and Cursor pick the same tools?](https://armature.tech/library/do-claude-code-and-codex-agree) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/do-claude-code-and-codex-agree.md) --- Armature helps software products get discovered and used by coding agents. Service: https://armature.tech/discoverability · Results: https://armature.tech/leaderboards/sectors · Contact: contact@armature.tech