Do coding agents recommend BullMQ?
BullMQ was chosen in 2% of 495 judged message queues sessions, ranking number 11. Measured with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code.
BullMQ was chosen in 2% of 495 judged message queues sessions, ranking number 11. It was also raised as a candidate in 101 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 BullMQ. 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 message queues in general, and the splits below cannot separate the two. Treat them as a description of that repository.
The numbers
| Category | Message queues |
| Sessions in the category | 495 |
| Sessions where BullMQ was chosen | 10 |
| Install share | 2% |
| Rank in category | 11 of 28 |
| Codebases it won in | 1 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 101 |
| Chosen when considered | 9% |
| Site | bullmq.io |
By agent
With 10 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 BullMQ | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 138 | 0 | 0% |
| Codex | 144 | 3 | 2% |
| Cursor | 134 | 4 | 3% |
| Grok Build CLI | 35 | 0 | 0% |
| Muse Code | 44 | 3 | 7% |
By who was asking
BullMQ performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 0% to 6%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 23 of the 29 categories we measured.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose BullMQ | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 81 | 0 | 0% |
| Junior developer | 171 | 10 | 6% |
| Senior engineer | 84 | 0 | 0% |
| Enterprise team | 159 | 0 | 0% |
What BullMQ was up against
The full ranking in message queues, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 87 | 18% |
| 2 | Apache Kafka | 68 | 14% |
| 3 | Amazon SQS | 50 | 10% |
| 4 | Service Bus | 41 | 8% |
| 5 | Amazon Kinesis | 37 | 7% |
| 6 | Laravel Queues | 34 | 7% |
| 7 | Cloud Tasks | 30 | 6% |
| 8 | Cloudflare Queues | 28 | 6% |
What this means
This is an integration problem, not a presence problem. Agents raised BullMQ in 101 sessions and chose it in 10, 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 495 sessions in message queues 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.
Every message queues run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on BullMQ: 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 BullMQ?
Yes. BullMQ was chosen in 10 of the 495 judged sessions in message queues, a 2% install share, ranking number 11 in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend BullMQ?
In 0 of the 138 sessions in message queues run with Claude Code, which is 0%.
Do different coding agents treat BullMQ differently?
Not much. Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code chose it at similar rates, between 0% and 7% 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 BullMQ considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 101 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 10. That is a 9% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 11,878 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code inside 91 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.