Next.js Cache
Built-in caching for Next.js apps
JS/TS
—
Overall Rank
Not in top 20
19.5%
Pick Rate
15 of 77 (CI: 12.2–29.7%)
15
Primary Picks
of 77 extractable
3
Alt Picks
also mentioned 9x
Competitive
Category Tier
41.6% winner dominance
In Caching
Full comparison →Redis32/77 (41.6%) CI: 31.2–52.7%
Custom/DIY15/77 (19.5%) CI: 12.2–29.7%
Next.js Cache15/77 (19.5%) CI: 12.2–29.7%
By Model
Sonnet 4.5
30.8%
avg across repos
Opus 4.5
44.4%
avg across repos
Opus 4.6
53.8%
avg across repos
Recency Gradient
Redis (2009)
46%Sonnet
0%4.6
Next.js Cache (2023)
31%Sonnet
54%4.6
Per-Repo Breakdown
| Repo | Stack | Sonnet | Opus 4.5 | Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
TaskFlowJS/TS | Next.js 14, TypeScript, App Router | 30.8% | 44.4% | 53.8% |
Key Insight
Fragmented by stack: Next.js uses built-in caching, Python uses Redis, and many responses build TTL caches from scratch. Stack-specific caching strategies dominate.
Model Disagreement
A genuine cross-language disagreement. Sonnet picks Redis at 71%. By Opus 4.6, Custom/DIY leads and Redis falls to 18%. Within JS, Next.js Cache also rises. Redis share across models: 71% → 31% → 18%.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Does Claude Code recommend Next.js Cache?
- Next.js Cache appears in 19.5% of Caching responses. The category leader is Redis at 41.6%.
- What caching tool does Claude Code prefer?
- Redis leads at 41.6%. The category is classified as "Competitive" (<50% dominance). Other options include Custom/DIY (19.5%) and Next.js Cache (19.5%).
- How do different Claude models compare on Next.js Cache?
- Across repos, Sonnet 4.5 averages 30.8%, Opus 4.5 averages 44.4%, and Opus 4.6 averages 53.8% for Next.js Cache. Models disagree on this category: A genuine cross-language disagreement. Sonnet picks Redis at 71%. By Opus 4.6, Custom/DIY leads and Redis falls to 18%. ...