5 Greptile alternatives in 2026, plus Greptile pricing

As of October 2026, Greptile pricing is $30 per developer per month with 50 review credits included, then $1 for each extra credit. The Greptile alternatives worth comparing are CodeRabbit, GitHub Copilot code review, Qodo, Cursor Bugbot and cubic (cubic.dev), and the right one depends on your git host and whether bot noise or missed bugs bother your team more.

A review costs 1, 3 or 10 credits depending on its tier, so the credit math can outweigh the seat price.

Disclosure: this blog belongs to cubic, an AI code review tool, so weigh what we say about it accordingly.

Greptile alternatives at a glance

Benchmark: Martian's online tracker, last-month view, checked October 4, 2026 (caveats below).

What is Greptile?

Greptile is an AI code review tool that indexes your repository into a graph and runs agents on each pull request. It reviews PRs automatically and skips drafts by default, and a typical review takes about 3 minutes. You can comment @greptileai to start a review or ask a focused question.

You configure the Greptile AI code review tool with plain-English rules in .greptile/ files or greptile.json, and it learns from thumbs-up and thumbs-down reactions over 2 to 3 weeks. Greptile is SOC 2 Type II.

Greptile pricing as of October 2026

From Greptile's pricing page:

A Base review costs 1 credit, Plus 3 and Apex 10. On Auto, Greptile picks the review tier for each PR and charges for the one that ran. Its pages don't say which plans include Plus and Apex, so ask before you budget for them.

Rules from the billing docs that move the total:

• You pay for active developers, meaning anyone with at least one completed review charged to them in the billing period.

• The PR author pays for each review, not whoever triggered it.

• Greptile bills completed reviews, not PRs, and depending on your settings a push or a rebase can start another one.

• Overage is per author: one developer's unused credits don't cover a teammate's.

• A flex usage limit caps overage. Once projected spend reaches it, Greptile skips reviews that would cost extra credits until the next billing period or until you raise the limit, leaving those PRs unreviewed.

• Billing is monthly; annual and multi-year contracts are custom.

Qualified non-commercial open-source projects are free, and pre-Series A startups with under $2M in revenue over the past 12 months get 50% off.

How Greptile credits add up

One developer on Pro, one Base review per PR, no re-reviews:

Re-reviews count: if each of 40 PRs also gets one review after a push, that's 80 credits and $60. The same 40 PRs at Plus use 120 credits ($30 + 70 × $1 = $100), and at Apex 400 ($30 + 350 × $1 = $380).

Greptile's docs recommend Auto as the default, plus Apex for PRs into your production branch or with more than 30 changed files. If most PRs merge straight into main, count how many that rule would catch before you turn it on.

Compare every tool's plans in AI code review pricing.

What Greptile does well

Developers act on its comments. Martian's Code Review Bench scores review bots on real open-source pull requests, and its online tracker (last-month view, checked October 4, 2026) ranks Greptile #2 of 14 tools at 61.9% F1, with the board's highest precision, 79.0%. 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.

It reaches more git hosts. Greptile's docs list GitHub (including Enterprise Server and Enterprise Cloud with data residency), GitLab (cloud and self-managed), Bitbucket (Cloud and Data Center), Gitea and Perforce on-prem. No other tool here lists Gitea or Perforce. The pricing page puts the self-managed and data-residency versions, Gitea and Perforce under Enterprise.

It self-hosts on Enterprise: Docker Compose or Kubernetes with Helm, air-gapped if you need it, with custom LLMs.

Why teams look for Greptile alternatives

The bill grows with review volume. Heavy authors, re-reviews and higher tiers add up. Switching won't end metering, though: CodeRabbit and cubic charge for use past their limits, and Copilot, Qodo and Bugbot charge by usage.

No Azure DevOps. Greptile doesn't list it. CodeRabbit and Qodo do; Copilot code review has it in preview and Bugbot in beta.

Self-hosting needs Enterprise, at Greptile and at the alternatives that document it. CodeRabbit's is for Enterprise customers with 500 or more seats, and Qodo's on-prem and air-gapped options sit on its Enterprise plan, for teams of 30 or more. Switching won't remove the Enterprise step, so compare quotes.

High precision, lower recall. Greptile's 79.0% precision comes with 50.8% recall, below cubic (59.7%), GitHub Copilot (56.0%) and CodeRabbit (55.3%) in the same view. If missed bugs bother your team more than noise, try a higher-recall tool. If noise is the complaint, Greptile is a sensible place to stay.

Five Greptile alternatives compared

They're in order of F1 among the 14 tools on Martian's online tracker (last-month view, checked October 4, 2026), which puts cubic first. Read the ranks with care: the board moves daily, and CodeRabbit, Qodo, cubic and Greptile have each published a #1 claim on it, at different dates and in different modes. On Martian's offline benchmark (50 hard bugs, as labeled September 8, 2026), Qodo's Deep configuration leads cubic by 0.2 F2 points.

Prices are as of October 2026, and each tool name links to its pricing page. If two prices appear, the first is billed yearly and the second monthly.

1. cubic (our product)

cubic is the AI code reviewer we build.

• Who it fits: teams on GitHub that put catching bugs first and want a per-seat price.

• Pricing: each seat adds reviewed lines to a team pool: 40,000 on Team, 80,000 on Pro, 200,000 on Max. Starter is free with 20 PR reviews a month, public repositories are free within fair-use limits, and the 7-day trial needs no credit card.

• Platforms: GitHub only.

• Benchmark: 72.0% precision and 59.7% recall, the highest recall in the view. Greptile's precision is higher.

cubic meters changed lines, so a re-review after a push counts only the new ones. Large PRs cut the other way: a 3,000-line PR uses 3,000 lines of allowance, while a Base review on Greptile costs 1 credit at any size. Extra lines cost $20 per 10,000, and on Pro and Max every developer with 15 or more PRs in the last 30 days needs a seat. cubic is SOC 2 Type 1.

2. CodeRabbit

• Who it fits: teams on GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket or Azure DevOps that want a per-developer price.

• Pricing: as in the table, plus custom Enterprise (pricing). Past a self-serve plan's limits, reviews cost $0.25 per reviewed file, up to a monthly cap. The 14-day trial needs no card, and public repositories get free reviews.

• Platforms: the table's four, including GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab self-managed and Bitbucket Data Center (docs).

• Benchmark: 0.1 F1 points behind Greptile, with 70.0% precision and 55.3% recall.

Plans cap reviews per developer per hour (5 on Essentials, 8 on Team, 10 on Advanced), and one review covers up to 150 files on Essentials and 300 on the others. If Azure DevOps or the credit math is why you're leaving, CodeRabbit is the closest swap, though developers act on a smaller share of its comments. More in CodeRabbit vs Greptile and cubic vs CodeRabbit.

3. GitHub Copilot code review

• Who it fits: teams on Copilot Business or Enterprise on github.com that want a reviewer without another vendor.

• Pricing: part of paid Copilot plans (plans): Pro $10 a month, Pro+ $39, Max $100, Business $19 per seat, Enterprise $39 per seat. Copilot Free doesn't review PRs. Since June 1, 2026, each review uses AI credits plus GitHub Actions minutes on private repositories. GitHub estimates $0.05 to $1 in AI credits per review at Lite effort and $0.25 to $5 at Balanced, the default since September 28, 2026.

• Platforms: github.com and, in preview, Azure DevOps. Not GitHub Enterprise Server.

• Benchmark: 67.0% precision and 56.0% recall.

Our GitHub Copilot code review guide covers setup and billing.

4. Qodo

• Who it fits: Azure DevOps or Gerrit teams, on-prem or air-gapped deployments, and teams that want one pooled credit budget.

• Pricing: Pro Team, for up to 30 users, pools credits at $0.012 each (pricing). Qodo estimates its packs of 2,500, 5,000 and 20,000 credits at about 18, 36 and 144 reviews a month, roughly $1.70 a review. Billing is monthly with no commitment; overage runs at the same rate up to a cap you set. Enterprise is custom for 30 or more users. There's no permanent free tier; the 14-day trial needs no card, and an open-source program gives free access.

• Platforms: the five in the table; Gerrit needs Enterprise.

• Benchmark: listed as Qodo Code Review, with 72.7% precision and 48.0% recall. Qodo's Deep configuration, which Qodo calls a research preview, is #1 on the offline benchmark, so ask which one you'd get.

5. Cursor Bugbot

• Who it fits: teams that already work in Cursor and want fixes handed to Cursor's agents.

• Pricing: usage-based since May 2026, replacing a $40 per seat per month subscription (Cursor's post). Cursor puts the average run at $1.00 to $1.50, depending on PR size and complexity. Teams pay from on-demand spend. The trial is 14 days.

• Platforms: GitHub (including Enterprise Server), GitLab (including self-hosted, on a paid GitLab plan), Bitbucket (Cloud in public beta, Data Center on Cursor Teams or Enterprise), and Azure DevOps Services in beta, without Autofix (docs).

• Benchmark: listed as Cursor, with 72.5% precision and 47.1% recall.

Bugbot runs on every PR update by default, so budget per run, not per PR, as with Greptile's re-reviews. SpaceX acquired Cursor in August 2026, and Cursor still offers Bugbot. Our Cursor Bugbot review covers setup, .cursor/BUGBOT.md rules and Autofix.

How to test a Greptile alternative on your own repos

Martian scores open-source PRs; yours are the ones that count.

1. Turn on two tools for the same repositories. Greptile Pro, CodeRabbit, Qodo and Bugbot have 14-day trials, cubic's is 7 days with no card, and Copilot code review comes with paid Copilot plans.

2. Run them for two weeks on normal work, with your review process unchanged.

3. Log every bot comment as acted on (code changed), dismissed as wrong, or ignored.

4. Credit both tools when both flag the same issue, and note which commented first; whoever fixed it may never have read the second.

5. Compare per tool the share of comments acted on, the comments nobody acted on (your noise), and the real issues it caught that the other missed.

6. Check the cost. Total the credits, runs or lines each tool used, and project a month for your heaviest and lightest PR authors.

To test recall, replay past PRs that shipped a bug you later fixed: recreate the pre-fix branch, open a PR, and see which tool flags it.

Keep the reviewer whose comments your team acts on.

If you're on GitHub, try cubic free for 7 days on your own PRs, no credit card needed.