Do coding agents recommend Checkly?
Checkly was chosen in 4% of 593 judged observability sessions, ranking fifth. Measured with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code.
Checkly was chosen in 4% of 593 judged observability sessions, ranking fifth. It was also raised as a candidate in 27 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 Checkly. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Observability |
| Sessions in the category | 593 |
| Sessions where Checkly was chosen | 25 |
| Install share | 4% |
| Rank in category | 5 of 21 |
| Codebases it won in | 3 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 27 |
| Chosen when considered | 48% |
| Site | checklyhq.com |
By agent
Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Muse Code land within 9 points of each other on Checkly, which is closer than most products in this experiment manage. Grok Build CLI ran fewer than 30 sessions here, too few to compare.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Checkly | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 150 | 3 | 2% |
| Codex | 180 | 16 | 9% |
| Cursor | 150 | 5 | 3% |
| Grok Build CLI | 24 | 1 | 4% |
| Muse Code | 89 | 0 | 0% |
By who was asking
Checkly performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 0% to 5%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 24 of the 31 categories we measured.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Checkly | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 20 | 1 | 5% |
| Junior developer | 20 | 0 | 0% |
| Senior engineer | 493 | 24 | 5% |
| Enterprise team | 60 | 0 | 0% |
What Checkly was up against
The full ranking in observability, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sentry | 211 | 36% |
| 2 | Grafana | 86 | 15% |
| 3 | Amazon CloudWatch | 59 | 10% |
| 4 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 41 | 7% |
| 5 | Better Stack | 26 | 4% |
| 6 | Checkly (this page) | 25 | 4% |
| 7 | New Relic | 24 | 4% |
| 8 | Datadog | 24 | 4% |
What this means
Checkly was raised in 27 sessions and chosen in 25. 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 593 sessions in observability 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 observability run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Checkly: 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 Checkly?
Yes. Checkly was chosen in 25 of the 593 judged sessions in observability, a 4% install share, ranking fifth in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Checkly?
In 3 of the 150 sessions in observability run with Claude Code, which is 2%.
Do different coding agents treat Checkly differently?
Not much. Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Muse Code chose it at similar rates, between 0% and 9% of their runs.
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 Checkly considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 27 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 25. That is a 48% 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.