Do coding agents recommend WorkOS AuthKit?
WorkOS AuthKit is the most chosen authentication provider, taking 26% of 201 judged authentication sessions. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor.
WorkOS AuthKit is the most chosen authentication provider, taking 26% of 201 judged authentication sessions. It was also raised as a candidate in 39 further sessions without being chosen.
This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor had to solve a problem in authentication inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about WorkOS AuthKit. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Authentication |
| Sessions in the category | 201 |
| Sessions where WorkOS AuthKit was chosen | 53 |
| Install share | 26% |
| Rank in category | 1 of 17 |
| Codebases it won in | 12 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 39 |
| Chosen when considered | 58% |
| Site | workos.com |
By agent
The three agents treat WorkOS AuthKit very differently. Claude Code chose it in 38% of its sessions in this category and Cursor in 16%, a spread of 22 points.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose WorkOS AuthKit | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 65 | 25 | 38% |
| Codex | 68 | 17 | 25% |
| Cursor | 68 | 11 | 16% |
A single blended install share would report the midpoint and hide both ends. If most of your users run Cursor, your real position here is 16%, not 26%.
By who was asking
WorkOS AuthKit does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 40% of sessions asked as junior developer and 0% of those asked as vibe coder.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose WorkOS AuthKit | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 26 | 0 | 0% |
| Junior developer | 62 | 25 | 40% |
| Senior engineer | 69 | 18 | 26% |
| Enterprise team | 44 | 10 | 23% |
What WorkOS AuthKit was up against
The full ranking in authentication, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WorkOS AuthKit (this page) | 53 | 26% |
| 2 | Auth0 | 46 | 23% |
| 3 | Microsoft Entra ID | 21 | 10% |
| 4 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 21 | 10% |
| 5 | Clerk | 20 | 10% |
| 6 | Better Auth | 8 | 4% |
| 7 | Keycloak | 7 | 3% |
| 8 | Google Identity | 3 | 1% |
What this means
Leading a category is a position to defend rather than a result to celebrate. In our data, leaders lose ground in exactly two situations: when the person asking is an enterprise buyer with procurement constraints, and when a competitor's documentation is easier for an agent to integrate correctly.
The defence is unglamorous. Keep the quickstart running. Keep the version current on the page. Keep the names aligned. Stay in the templates.
Where these numbers come from
The 201 sessions in authentication 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 authentication run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on WorkOS AuthKit: 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 WorkOS AuthKit?
Yes. WorkOS AuthKit was chosen in 53 of the 201 judged sessions in authentication, a 26% install share, ranking first in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend WorkOS AuthKit?
In 25 of the 65 sessions in authentication run with Claude Code, which is 38%.
Do different coding agents treat WorkOS AuthKit differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Claude Code chose it in 38% of its runs and Cursor in 16%.
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 WorkOS AuthKit considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 39 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 53. That is a 58% 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.