Do coding agents recommend Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0?
Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0 was chosen in 4% of 754 judged voice agents sessions, ranking seventh.
Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0 was chosen in 4% of 754 judged voice agents sessions, ranking seventh. It was also raised as a candidate in 9 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 voice agents inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Voice agents |
| Sessions in the category | 754 |
| Sessions where Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0 was chosen | 29 |
| Install share | 4% |
| Rank in category | 7 of 32 |
| Codebases it won in | 7 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 9 |
| Chosen when considered | 76% |
| Site | x.ai |
By agent
The agents treat Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0 very differently. Grok Build CLI chose it in 43% of its sessions in this category and Claude Code in 0%, a spread of 43 points.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0 | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 157 | 0 | 0% |
| Codex | 217 | 0 | 0% |
| Cursor | 167 | 3 | 2% |
| Grok Build CLI | 60 | 26 | 43% |
| Muse Code | 153 | 0 | 0% |
A single blended install share would report the midpoint and hide both ends. If most of your users run Claude Code, your real position here is 0%, not 4%.
By who was asking
Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0 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 31 categories we measured.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0 | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 134 | 0 | 0% |
| Junior developer | 90 | 4 | 4% |
| Senior engineer | 322 | 12 | 4% |
| Enterprise team | 208 | 13 | 6% |
What Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0 was up against
The full ranking in voice agents, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Retell AI | 168 | 22% |
| 2 | Vapi | 124 | 16% |
| 3 | Twilio ConversationRelay | 99 | 13% |
| 4 | LiveKit Agents | 98 | 13% |
| 5 | ElevenLabs Agents | 59 | 8% |
| 6 | OpenAI Realtime API | 49 | 6% |
| 7 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 35 | 5% |
| 8 | Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0 (this page) | 29 | 4% |
What this means
Agents almost never raise Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0 without choosing it: 9 sessions raised against 29 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 754 sessions in voice agents are part of a published set of 15,051, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.
Every voice agents run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0: 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 Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0?
Yes. Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0 was chosen in 29 of the 754 judged sessions in voice agents, a 4% install share, ranking seventh in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0?
In 0 of the 157 sessions in voice agents run with Claude Code, which is 0%.
Do different coding agents treat Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0 differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Grok Build CLI chose it in 43% of its runs and Claude Code in 0%.
How was this measured?
Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 92 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 Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0 considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 9 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 29. That is a 76% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 15,051 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code inside 92 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.