Do coding agents recommend Cloudflare Workers?
Cloudflare Workers was chosen in 6% of 476 judged serverless compute sessions, ranking fourth.
Cloudflare Workers was chosen in 6% of 476 judged serverless compute sessions, ranking fourth. It was also raised as a candidate in 150 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 serverless compute inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Cloudflare Workers. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Serverless compute |
| Sessions in the category | 476 |
| Sessions where Cloudflare Workers was chosen | 30 |
| Install share | 6% |
| Rank in category | 4 of 14 |
| Codebases it won in | 3 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 150 |
| Chosen when considered | 17% |
| Site | workers.cloudflare.com |
By agent
Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Muse Code land within 9 points of each other on Cloudflare Workers, 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 Cloudflare Workers | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 120 | 3 | 3% |
| Codex | 144 | 15 | 10% |
| Cursor | 119 | 9 | 8% |
| Grok Build CLI | 22 | 2 | 9% |
| Muse Code | 71 | 1 | 1% |
By who was asking
Cloudflare Workers does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 38% of sessions asked as vibe coder and 0% of those asked as enterprise team.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Cloudflare Workers | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 60 | 23 | 38% |
| Junior developer | 119 | 4 | 3% |
| Senior engineer | 177 | 3 | 2% |
| Enterprise team | 120 | 0 | 0% |
What Cloudflare Workers was up against
The full ranking in serverless compute, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AWS Lambda | 114 | 24% |
| 2 | Vercel Functions | 110 | 23% |
| 3 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 88 | 18% |
| 4 | Azure Functions | 59 | 12% |
| 5 | Cloudflare Workers (this page) | 30 | 6% |
| 6 | Google Cloud Run | 14 | 3% |
| 7 | Inngest | 8 | 2% |
| 8 | Fly.io | 8 | 2% |
What this means
This is an integration problem, not a presence problem. Agents raised Cloudflare Workers in 150 sessions and chose it in 30, 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 476 sessions in serverless compute 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 serverless compute run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Cloudflare Workers: 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 Cloudflare Workers?
Yes. Cloudflare Workers was chosen in 30 of the 476 judged sessions in serverless compute, a 6% install share, ranking fourth in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Cloudflare Workers?
In 3 of the 120 sessions in serverless compute run with Claude Code, which is 3%.
Do different coding agents treat Cloudflare Workers differently?
Not much. Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Muse Code 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 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 Cloudflare Workers considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 150 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 30. That is a 17% 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.