# Do coding agents recommend Checkly? > Checkly was chosen in 5% of 360 judged observability sessions, ranking fourth. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor. Source: https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-checkly Published: 2026-09-03 Publisher: Armature, Inc. (https://armature.tech) --- > Checkly was chosen in 5% of 360 judged observability sessions, ranking fourth. It was also raised as a candidate in 15 further sessions without being chosen. This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor 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 | 360 | | Sessions where Checkly was chosen | 17 | | Install share | 5% | | Rank in category | 4 of 16 | | Codebases it won in | 3 | | Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 15 | | Chosen when considered | 53% | | Site | checklyhq.com | ## By agent With 17 wins spread across three 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 Checkly | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Claude Code | 120 | 1 | 1% | | Codex | 120 | 12 | 10% | | Cursor | 120 | 4 | 3% | ## By who was asking Checkly performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 0% to 6%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 14 of the 18 categories we measured. | Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Checkly | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Vibe coder | 12 | 0 | 0% | | Junior developer | 12 | 0 | 0% | | Senior engineer | 300 | 17 | 6% | | Enterprise team | 36 | 0 | 0% | ## What Checkly was up against The full ranking in observability, from the same sessions: | # | Product | Runs won | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Sentry | 133 | 37% | | 2 | Grafana | 52 | 14% | | 3 | Amazon CloudWatch | 30 | 8% | | 4 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 22 | 6% | | 5 | Checkly **(this page)** | 17 | 5% | | 6 | Datadog | 16 | 4% | | 7 | Better Stack | 15 | 4% | | 8 | New Relic | 15 | 4% | ## What this means Agents almost never raise Checkly without choosing it: 15 sessions raised against 17 chosen. When it gets considered, it usually wins. The constraint is how rarely it gets considered at all, which is a presence problem: templates, framework integrations and pages that answer the configuration and production questions agents actually search for. ## Where these numbers come from The 360 sessions in observability 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](/library/how-we-measured-this). Every observability run can be replayed on [the board](/leaderboards/observability). 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. ## Common questions ### Do coding agents recommend Checkly? Yes. Checkly was chosen in 17 of the 360 judged sessions in observability, a 5% install share, ranking fourth in its category. ### Does Claude Code recommend Checkly? In 1 of the 120 sessions in observability run with Claude Code, which is 1%. ### Do different coding agents treat Checkly differently? Not much. The three agents chose it at similar rates, between 1% and 10% of their runs. ### 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 Checkly considered but not chosen? It was raised as a candidate in 15 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 17. That is a 53% 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