The short version. CodeRabbit at $24 a seat is the most complete, and it limits you by reviews per hour. Greptile is free to start and $30 a seat, metered in credits at a dollar each once you pass fifty. Graphite at $20 makes AI review part of a stacked pull request workflow. Qodo starts at $30 a month for up to thirty users, which is unusual pricing worth checking. GitHub Copilot reviews code too and you may already be paying for it.
Every price here came off the vendor’s own pricing page on 15 August 2026.
Choosing for a team? We keep directory shortlists for engineering leads and review them on a schedule.
Nobody prices this the same way, which makes comparison hard
Here is the problem with shopping in this category. Five vendors, five different units, and the seat price tells you very little:
- CodeRabbit limits reviews per developer per hour: 5 on Pro, 10 on Pro Plus, 12 on Enterprise.
- Greptile gives 50 credits a month per seat, where a standard review is one credit and a deeper review is three, then charges a dollar per extra credit.
- Graphite describes AI reviews as limited on its cheaper tiers and unlimited on Team.
- Qodo sells credits with a published rate of $0.012 each, and translates them for you into roughly 18, 36 or 144 reviews a month.
- Copilot gives you a monthly credit balance in dollars and lets you spend it across everything, review included.
So the question is not which is cheapest per seat. It is how many pull requests your team opens and how deep you want each review to be. Work that number out first, because it is the only thing that makes these comparable.
The reason to buy any of them is the same. Teams that adopt AI coding tools produce more code without producing more reviewers, and the queue moves from writing to reviewing. That lands on your most senior people, which is the expensive place for it to land.
1. CodeRabbit: the most complete, limited by the hour
Pro $24 per user per month billed annually, with 5 pull request reviews per developer per hour. Pro Plus $48 per user annually, with 10 per hour. CodeRabbit Security $40 per user. Enterprise custom, with 12 per hour. All subject to fair use. Verified 15 August 2026.
CodeRabbit does the fullest first pass. Line comments with suggested changes, a summary of what the pull request actually does, and a walkthrough of the diff that gives a human reviewer somewhere to start rather than a wall of files.
The hourly limit is unusual and reads oddly until you think about how teams work. Five reviews per developer per hour is generous for continuous work and tight for a team that batches everything into Friday afternoon. If your merges arrive in bursts, check that number against your actual pattern.
The separate Security tier at $40 is worth noticing if that is your reason for buying. Do not assume the standard plan covers the same ground.
Who it is wrong for: teams that will not act on the comments. An automated reviewer that everyone dismisses trains people to dismiss review, which is worse than not having one.
2. Greptile: free to start, then a dollar a review
Starter free with 50 credits a month, where 1 credit is a standard review and 3 credits is a deeper TREX review. Pro $30 per seat per month with 50 credits included per seat and $1 per additional credit. Enterprise custom. Verified 15 August 2026.
Greptile’s pitch is codebase context. It indexes the whole repository so the review understands how your code actually works rather than reading the diff in isolation, which is where generic review tools produce confident and irrelevant comments.
The credit model is the most transparent pricing here and the easiest to model. Fifty reviews included, then a dollar each. You can work out your bill from your merge count in about a minute, which is more than can be said for most of this list.
The free tier at 50 credits a month is genuinely useful for a small team, and the deeper review costing three credits is a sensible way to let you choose depth per pull request rather than paying for the maximum every time.
Who it is wrong for: very high volume teams. At a dollar a review beyond the allowance, a team merging hundreds of pull requests a month should model this carefully against CodeRabbit’s hourly limits.
3. Graphite: review as part of how you ship
Hobby free with limited AI reviews. Starter $20 per user per month billed annually, also with limited AI reviews. Team $40 per user annually with unlimited AI reviews. Enterprise custom. Annual billing is 20% off. Verified 15 August 2026.
Graphite is a stacked pull request workflow with AI review attached, and that ordering matters. If your team already breaks work into small dependent pull requests, this fits how you already ship and the review is a bonus. If you do not work that way, you are adopting a workflow to get a reviewer, which is a much bigger change than installing a bot.
The pricing is the least specific here. Limited and unlimited are the only two states described, with no number attached to limited, so you cannot model the cheaper tier from your merge volume. Ask before buying Starter for a busy team.
Unlimited AI reviews at $40 is competitive if you merge a lot, and it is the tier that makes sense for most teams choosing this.
Who it is wrong for: teams happy with a single large pull request per feature. The workflow is the product, and bolting it on for the review alone is not worth the disruption.
4. Qodo: priced by the account, not by the seat
Free 14 day trial with unlimited reviews and credits. Pro Team from $30 a month for up to 30 users, with credit packs of 2,500, 5,000 or 20,000 that the vendor translates to roughly 18, 36 or 144 reviews a month, at $0.012 per credit. No annual commitment and no rate limits. Enterprise custom for 30 or more users. Verified 15 August 2026.
Qodo is here mostly because of the pricing shape, which is genuinely different. Everything else on this page charges per seat. Qodo charges for the account and lets up to thirty people use it, then meters the work in credits.
For a team with ten engineers and a review volume that is not enormous, that is a very different bill. Ten seats on CodeRabbit Pro is $240 a month. Qodo starts at $30 with a credit pack sized to your usage. Whether it stays cheaper depends entirely on volume, since credits are the real meter, but the starting point is not comparable.
Publishing a per credit rate of $0.012 alongside a rough review count is unusually honest and makes modelling possible, which is more than Graphite offers.
Who it is wrong for: teams reviewing constantly. The low entry price assumes moderate volume, and heavy use is where per seat pricing starts winning.
5. GitHub Copilot: already in the building
Free tier with 2,000 completions a month. Pro $10/month or $120/year with $15 in monthly credits. Pro+ $39/month or $468/year with $70 in credits. Max $100/month or $1,200/year with $200 in credits. Verified 15 August 2026.
Copilot does code review alongside everything else it does, and for a lot of teams that makes it the cheapest option by a wide margin, because it is already on the bill and may be bundled into a GitHub plan you pay for.
It is not as deep as CodeRabbit or Greptile. It reviews the diff competently, catches obvious problems, and does not have the same whole-repository understanding. For many teams that is enough, and the correct order is to try what you already own before buying a second thing.
The credit model means review competes with agent work for the same balance. A developer leaning on agent mode will have less headroom for review, which is a strange trade to be making without noticing.
Who it is wrong for: teams where review quality is the actual problem. If pull requests are getting through with real defects, a dedicated reviewer is worth the second subscription.
Teams this list will not help
Solo developers. Greptile’s free tier and Copilot’s free tier are plenty. Do not pay to have a bot review code nobody else reads.
Teams with a healthy review culture and spare capacity. If pull requests get thoughtful human review within a few hours, you are buying a solution to a problem you have already solved.
Regulated environments where code cannot leave. Every tool here sends your code to a vendor. That question comes before any comparison.
Teams hoping this replaces review. None of these approve a pull request in any meaningful sense. They make the human reviewer start further along, and treating them as the reviewer is how bad code ships with a green tick on it.
Considered, and left off
Sourcery and the older static analysis tools. Reliable, cheap, and doing a narrower job than the reasoning-based reviewers here.
Bito and the smaller entrants. A crowded field where the differences are mostly which model is underneath. We have ranked the ones with enough adoption to have a track record.
Cursor and Claude Code. Both can review, and both are aimed at writing. They are on our list of AI coding assistants, which is the adjacent purchase.
Your CI pipeline. Linting, tests and type checking catch a large share of what these tools flag, at no per seat cost. Get that right before adding an AI reviewer on top of a pipeline that does not run.
Questions engineering leads ask us
Which is actually cheapest for ten developers?
It depends on merge volume, and the units are not comparable. Ten seats of CodeRabbit Pro is $240 a month. Ten seats of Greptile Pro is $300 plus a dollar per review beyond fifty each. Qodo starts at $30 for up to thirty users with a credit pack on top. Count your monthly pull requests first, because that number decides this and nothing else does.
Do we still need human review?
Yes, and anyone selling you otherwise is describing a liability. These tools catch the mechanical problems and summarise intent. They do not know that the approach is wrong, that this duplicates something in another service, or that the feature was not what the customer asked for.
Will developers ignore the comments?
Some will, and the fix is not a better tool. Decide as a team which categories of comment are blocking and which are advisory, and turn the noisy ones off. An automated reviewer nobody reads is worse than none, because it teaches people to skim past review comments generally.
What about code that cannot leave our network?
All five send code to a vendor. Get your security team’s position before evaluating features, because it removes the entire list. Self-hosted assistants exist and are covered in our AI coding assistants piece.
Is this worth it for a team of three?
Start with Greptile’s free tier at 50 credits a month or Copilot if you have it. Three people reviewing each other’s work properly is already better than most teams manage, and the value here rises with the size of the review queue.
Does AI review make the codebase better or just faster?
Faster, mostly, and more consistent on the boring things: naming, error handling, missing tests, obvious edge cases. Architecture and whether the thing should exist at all remain entirely human, and those are what actually determine whether a codebase is good in two years.
See our maintained directory picks for engineering leads.
Last reviewed: 15 August 2026. Every price was read off the vendor’s own pricing page on that date. Graphite does not publish a number behind its limited AI review tiers, and we have said so rather than estimating. We review this page quarterly.
Leave a Reply