CodeRabbit vs Greptile: tied on accuracy, split on pricing

CodeRabbit vs Greptile is a tie on accuracy, so pick on pricing and fit. On Martian's Code Review Bench, Greptile scores 61.9% F1 and CodeRabbit 61.8% (online tracker, last-month view, checked October 4, 2026), and the offline benchmark puts them 0.1 points apart too.

Precision is the share of a reviewer's comments developers acted on, recall is the share of real fixes it caught, and F1 balances the two. Developers act on Greptile's comments more often than on any other tool's in that view, so start there if your team already ignores most bot comments. CodeRabbit catches more of the issues developers go on to fix than Greptile does, so start there if you'd rather dismiss extra comments than miss issues.

CodeRabbit charges a fixed price per developer and runs on Azure DevOps, which Greptile doesn't list. Greptile charges a seat plus credits and lets you pay for deeper reviews only on the PRs that need them.

This blog belongs to cubic (cubic.dev), an AI code review tool that competes with both. cubic stays out of the comparison until a labeled section at the end.

CodeRabbit vs Greptile at a glance

Prices and limits as of October 2026, from CodeRabbit's pricing page and plan docs, and Greptile's pricing page and billing docs.

How CodeRabbit reviews a pull request

CodeRabbit leans on tooling. Each review runs in a sandbox with your repository cloned, where CodeRabbit says it runs more than 50 linters, static analyzers and SAST tools while agents explore the codebase (architecture). It reviews each new pull request that targets your default branch, then each new push (auto-review settings).

If you already write rules for coding agents, CodeRabbit uses them from the first review: it reads AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules and similar files alongside its own .coderabbit.yaml (code guidelines). It can also save a convention you explain in a reply as a "learning" for the repository or the whole organization (learnings).

Essentials includes Autofix, Team adds triage, unit test generation and merge-conflict resolution, and Advanced adds continuous security review of every PR.

The hourly cap is the limit you'll feel, because every incremental review after a push uses one of a developer's reviews for that hour. CodeRabbit also skips the automatic review on PRs over the file limit (counted after path filters), and 300 files is the ceiling on every plan.

We'd start on Essentials unless your PRs often pass 150 files or you want test generation, which starts on Team.

How Greptile reviews a pull request

Greptile leans on its index. It turns each repository you connect into a graph of files, functions, classes, imports and calls, and each review queries that graph to see what a change touches outside the diff (codebase context). Greptile says findings arrive in about 3 minutes. It reviews when a PR opens, and you decide whether pushes and rebases trigger more reviews.

Review tiers are the feature to understand, because they set both depth and cost (review tiers). Auto picks Base, Plus or Apex per PR from its size, risk and complexity. Greptile recommends Auto as the default, with rules that run Apex on PRs into your production branch and on PRs that change more than 30 files.

Config lives in .greptile/ folders that cascade by directory, so one package in a monorepo can get stricter reviews than the rest. Comment-type filters (logic, syntax, style) sit on top of the strictness setting (noise controls). Greptile says it takes 2-3 weeks of consistent reactions to adapt, and the trial lasts 14 days, so react to its comments from the first day.

A "Fix with your Agent" button sends a finding to Claude Code, Codex, Conductor, Cursor or Devin, and T-Rex (beta) writes tests for the PR and runs them in a sandbox.

Greptile's docs list no hourly cap, so cost is the practical limit, and reviewing every push multiplies it.

Pricing for a 10-developer team

Our arithmetic from the published prices (CodeRabbit, Greptile), as of October 2026, for 10 developers who all open pull requests:

The CodeRabbit figure only changes if a developer hits the hourly limit and you've turned on usage-based reviews, at $0.25 per reviewed file up to a monthly cap you set.

The Greptile figure moves with use. Greptile charges each completed review to the PR's author, push-triggered reviews included, and doesn't pool credits. A developer who receives 80 Base reviews in a month adds $30, even if a teammate used only 10. One Apex review costs as much as ten Base reviews. With a flex cap of $0, Greptile skips any review that would cost extra.

CodeRabbit's bill is easier to predict. If you run Greptile, set a flex cap before you turn on push reviews. For the same math across every major tool, see AI code review pricing.

Greptile vs CodeRabbit: which is more accurate?

Neither is more accurate by a margin that matters. Greptile scores 61.9% F1 and CodeRabbit 61.8% on Martian's online tracker (last-month view, checked October 4, 2026), and 51.2% vs 51.1% F2 on its offline benchmark (as labeled Sep 8, 2026). Developers act on more of Greptile's comments, while CodeRabbit catches more of the issues that get fixed.

Martian's Code Review Bench is an open-source benchmark from Martian, a research lab that says it doesn't sell coding tools. Its online tracker uses an LLM judge to score review bots on merged open-source pull requests. The offline benchmark runs every tool on the same 50 PRs with hard-to-find bugs and ranks them by F2, which weights recall above precision. Precision and recall split the same way in both modes, and Greptile's 79.0% online precision is the highest of the 14 tools in that view:

Before you rely on these numbers:

• The board moves daily, and a 0.1-point gap can flip with the next update.

• Martian says its online data can't support head-to-head comparisons, because bots on the same repo see each other's comments and different kinds of repos adopt different tools.

• Offline, a real bug missing from the answer key counts as a false positive. CodeRabbit has argued that this penalizes high-recall tools like itself.

• Several vendors have each claimed #1 on this benchmark, at different dates and in different modes: CodeRabbit in March 2026 for a January-February window, Greptile on July 30, 2026, and Qodo and cubic in their own posts. Read each for its own date and mode, and they don't contradict each other.

Should you pick CodeRabbit or Greptile?

Pick CodeRabbit if you're on Azure DevOps, or if you want a fixed per-developer bill and would rather dismiss extra comments than miss issues. Pick Greptile if noise is your main complaint, or if you want to pay for deep reviews only on the PRs that carry risk.

Pick CodeRabbit if

• Your code is on Azure DevOps. Greptile doesn't list it.

• You want a predictable bill. Essentials at $24 per developer a month, billed annually, is also the lowest published seat price of the two.

• You'd rather see more findings and dismiss some. It has the higher recall in both benchmark modes.

• You want linters, SAST and follow-up work in one tool. Unit test generation and merge-conflict resolution start on Team.

• You need to self-host and have at least 500 seats.

Pick Greptile if

• Noise is the main complaint about your current reviewer. Greptile has the highest precision on the tracker, and its strictness setting and comment-type filters cut comments further.

• You want to spend review effort unevenly, with Base on routine PRs and Apex on PRs into your production branch.

• Some of your PRs pass 300 files, CodeRabbit's ceiling. Greptile's docs list no file cap.

• You're on Gitea, or on Perforce and willing to self-host. Greptile's pricing page lists both under Enterprise.

• You want a bot that approves low-risk PRs and can live with a beta.

• You're a pre-Series A startup with under $2M in revenue over the past 12 months (50% off) or a non-commercial open-source project (free, by application).

If you're still torn, use the 14-day trials. Run one on an active repository for two weeks, then the other, and count how many of each bot's comments led to a code change. Don't run both on the same PRs at once, for the reason Martian gives above. If neither fits, we compare Greptile alternatives in a separate post, with prices.

Where cubic fits

cubic is our product, so weigh this section accordingly.

cubic is an AI code reviewer for GitHub, and only GitHub. If your code is on GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps, Gitea or Perforce, one of the two tools above is the better fit.

On the same view (online tracker, last month, checked October 4, 2026), cubic is #1 at 65.3% F1, with 72.0% precision and 59.7% recall. The lead comes from recall, the highest in that view, and Greptile's precision is higher than ours. On the offline benchmark, Qodo's Deep configuration leads cubic by 0.2 F2 points (65.1% vs 64.9%, as labeled Sep 8, 2026). The caveats above apply to our numbers too.

cubic reviews each PR against custom agents (plain-English rules you write) and learns from your team's replies and from the past PR comments of senior reviewers you choose. Auto-approval runs in shadow mode until you switch it to live. On Pro and Max, Fix with cubic sends a finding to a coding agent that pushes the fix to the PR branch.

As of October 2026, cubic's pricing per developer per month is $30 on Team billed yearly ($40 monthly), $79 on Pro ($99) and $160 on Max ($200). Each seat adds reviewed lines to one pooled team allowance: 40,000 a month on Team, 80,000 on Pro and 200,000 on Max. Extra lines cost $20 per 10,000. On monthly billing, cubic's entry price is the highest of the three. Starter is free for 20 PR reviews a month, public repositories are free within fair-use limits, and paid plans start with a 7-day trial with no credit card.

For a direct comparison, see cubic vs CodeRabbit.

The benchmark can't separate CodeRabbit and Greptile, so test them on your own pull requests.

Try cubic free for 7 days if your code is on GitHub.