From the experiment

Do coding agents recommend Twilio ConversationRelay?

Twilio ConversationRelay was chosen in 9% of 308 judged voice agents sessions, ranking sixth. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor.

Published September 3, 2026 Read as Markdown

Twilio ConversationRelay was chosen in 9% of 308 judged voice agents sessions, ranking sixth. It was also raised as a candidate in 131 further sessions without being chosen.

This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor had to solve a problem in voice agents inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Twilio ConversationRelay. What an agent actually installed.

The numbers

CategoryVoice agents
Sessions in the category308
Sessions where Twilio ConversationRelay was chosen28
Install share9%
Rank in category6 of 18
Codebases it won in8
Raised as a candidate, not chosen131
Chosen when considered18%
Sitetwilio.com

By agent

The three agents treat Twilio ConversationRelay very differently. Claude Code chose it in 24% of its sessions in this category and Codex in 0%, a spread of 24 points.

AgentSessionsChose Twilio ConversationRelayShare
Claude Code942324%
Codex11000%
Cursor10455%

A single blended install share would report the midpoint and hide both ends. If most of your users run Codex, your real position here is 0%, not 9%.

By who was asking

Twilio ConversationRelay performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 5% to 12%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 14 of the 18 categories we measured.

Who is askingSessionsChose Twilio ConversationRelayShare
Vibe coder6235%
Junior developer4237%
Senior engineer1281512%
Enterprise team7679%

What Twilio ConversationRelay was up against

The full ranking in voice agents, from the same sessions:

#ProductRuns wonShare
1Vapi7424%
2Retell AI5518%
3OpenAI Realtime API3712%
4LiveKit Agents3511%
5ElevenLabs Agents3010%
6Twilio ConversationRelay (this page)289%
7Built in-house (no product adopted)186%
8Azure Voice Live API103%

What this means

This is an integration problem, not a presence problem. Agents raised Twilio ConversationRelay in 131 sessions and chose it in 28, 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 308 sessions in voice agents 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.

Every voice agents run can be replayed on the board.

If you work on Twilio ConversationRelay: 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 Twilio ConversationRelay?

Yes. Twilio ConversationRelay was chosen in 28 of the 308 judged sessions in voice agents, a 9% install share, ranking sixth in its category.

Does Claude Code recommend Twilio ConversationRelay?

In 23 of the 94 sessions in voice agents run with Claude Code, which is 24%.

Do different coding agents treat Twilio ConversationRelay differently?

Yes, and by a wide margin. Claude Code chose it in 24% of its runs and Codex in 0%.

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 Twilio ConversationRelay considered but not chosen?

It was raised as a candidate in 131 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 28. That is a 18% conversion from considered to chosen.

Where this comes from

Armature ran 5,292 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor inside 51 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.

Read next

All library pages