Amplifying/ai-benchmarks

BullMQ

Redis-based Node.js job queue

JS/TS
Overall Rank
Not in top 20
25.5%
Pick Rate
14 of 55 (CI: 15.8–38.3%)
14
Primary Picks
of 55 extractable
11
Alt Picks
also mentioned 3x
Competitive
Category Tier
25.5% winner dominance

In Background Jobs

Full comparison →
BullMQ14/55 (25.5%) CI: 15.8–38.3%
Inngest13/55 (23.6%) CI: 14.4–36.3%
Celery10/55 (18.2%) CI: 10.2–30.3%
FastAPI BackgroundTasks7/55 (12.7%) CI: 6.3–24%

By Model

Sonnet 4.5
50%
avg across repos
Opus 4.5
55.6%
avg across repos
Opus 4.6
40%
avg across repos

Recency Gradient

BullMQ (2019)
50%Sonnet
40%4.6
Inngest (2022)
40%Sonnet
50%4.6

Per-Repo Breakdown

RepoStackSonnetOpus 4.5Opus 4.6
TaskFlowJS/TS
Next.js 14, TypeScript, App Router50%55.6%40%

Key Insight

The most competitive third-party tool category. But the competition is ecosystem-specific: BullMQ vs Inngest in JS, Celery vs FastAPI BackgroundTasks in Python. Each ecosystem has its own race.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Claude Code recommend BullMQ?
BullMQ appears in 25.5% of Background Jobs responses. It's the most-picked tool in this category.
What background jobs tool does Claude Code prefer?
BullMQ leads at 25.5%. The category is classified as "Competitive" (<50% dominance). Other options include Inngest (23.6%) and Celery (18.2%).
How do different Claude models compare on BullMQ?
Across repos, Sonnet 4.5 averages 50%, Opus 4.5 averages 55.6%, and Opus 4.6 averages 40% for BullMQ.

See Also