AI Code Review With Monthly Billing (No Annual Lock-In)

Direct answer

Almost every AI code review tool offers month-to-month billing, and annual billing is consistently 20% cheaper. The exception runs the other way: GitHub retired annual Copilot plans on 1 June 2026, so Copilot is monthly-only. No AI reviewer sells a perpetual licence. The harder procurement problem is that “per developer” means five different things across five vendors, and usage-priced tools have no commitment at all but unbounded spend. Verified 2026-10-18.

All prices verified 2026-10-18. This market reprices frequently - check the vendor before you buy.

I write a lot of these pages. This one exists because every pricing comparison in this market answers the engineer’s question (“which is better?”) and none answer the buyer’s question, which is: can I expense this without a 12-month commitment and a finance conversation?

So this page is about billing mechanics, not quality. If you want the quality argument, read best AI code review tools and the state of AI code review in 2026. If you are a small team doing the worth-it maths, read AI code review for small teams, which is the companion to this piece.

AI code review software with monthly billing

Direct answer: 14 of the 15 commercial AI code reviewers we checked on 2026-10-18 offer month-to-month billing with no annual commitment. CodeRabbit, Sourcery, Bito, Codacy, cubic, Graphite, DeepSource and Greptile all publish a monthly rate. Qodo Pro Team is monthly-only at $30 flat. GitHub Copilot is monthly-only because annual plans were retired on 1 June 2026.

Monthly availability is close to universal, so it is a weak decision criterion. The things that actually vary, and that actually land in your budget, are these five:

1. What the pricing unit is - seat, repository, project, line of code, kilobyte of diff, or credit.
2. Who counts as a billable seat - and no two vendors agree.
3. What happens when you exceed the included allowance - the overage mechanic.
4. Whether anything is billed outside the subscription - Actions minutes, LLM tokens, AI credits.
5. How you pay - card, invoice, purchase order, or cloud marketplace drawdown.

Here is the whole market on those axes.

The billing-model table

Tool	Monthly available	Annual discount	Pricing unit	Overage mechanic	Billable seat definition
CodeRabbit	Yes, $30 Essentials	20% ($24 annual)	Per seat, repo cap by tier	$0.25 per reviewed file past hourly limit; $0.40 per agent minute	Developers who create pull requests only
Greptile	Yes, $30 Pro	Not published; custom on annual or multi-year	Per seat + 50 credits per seat	$1 per extra credit; credits are per author and do not pool	Any developer who received a review that period
Sourcery	Yes, $15 Pro / $30 Team	20% ($12 / $24)	Per seat	Review limits by tier, not metered billing	Assigned seats only; you choose the quantity
Bito	Yes, $15 Team / $25 Pro	20% ($12 / $20)	Per seat + 5,000 lines per seat	$5 per 1,000 reviewed lines, measured on PR diffs	Per seat, Team capped at 25 seats
Codacy	Yes, $21 Team	~14% ($18 annual)	Per seat, up to 30 devs	None published; Business tier at 30+ devs or 100+ private projects	Every Git contributor who commits to a private repo
cubic	Yes, $40 / $99 / $200	20% ($30 / $79 / $160)	Per seat + reviewed-line allowance (40K / 80K / 160K per dev)	Not published	Per developer
Graphite	Yes, $24 Starter / $48 Team	20% ($20 / $40)	Per seat	AI reviews “limited” on Starter, unlimited on Team	Per user
DeepSource	Yes, up to 20% more than annual	Up to 20% ($24 annual)	Per seat plus usage for AI review	$8 per 10K processed LOC Standard, $15 per 10K Advanced; $100 annual AI credit per user	Every member and admin on the DeepSource team
CodeAnt AI	Toggle shows $30; $24 widely listed as the annual rate	Unverified, likely 20%	Per user, unlimited PR reviews	None on Premium (reviews are unlimited)	Per user
Qodo	Yes, and monthly-only	None; no annual commitment on Pro Team	Flat $30/mo up to 30 users + credits at $0.012	Same per-credit rate up to a user-set monthly cap; credits expire monthly	No seats. Flat team fee
Snyk Code	Yes, Team from $25	One month free on annual payment	Project counts, not seats	Test caps: 100/mo free, 1,000/mo Team	”Contributing developer”: committed to a monitored private repo in the last 90 days
GitHub Copilot	Monthly only	None. Annual plans retired 1 June 2026	Per seat + AI credits + Actions minutes	AI credits at $0.01 each; Actions minutes at standard rates	Per licensed user; non-licensed users billed to the org
Cursor Bugbot	Yes, via Cursor plan	Per Cursor plan terms	Per review, ~$1.00-1.50	Usage draws on the account plan allowance	Requires a Cursor Premium or Teams seat
Macroscope	Yes, usage-only	None; no annual commitment	$0.05 per KB of diff, 10 KB minimum	Pure usage. Re-reviews billed each time	No seats, no seat minimum
PR-Agent	N/A	N/A	MIT licence, free	You pay LLM tokens and infra	None

Sources for the table: CodeRabbit pricing, Greptile pricing, Sourcery pricing, Bito billing docs, Codacy pricing, Graphite pricing, DeepSource pricing, Qodo pricing, Snyk plans, GitHub Copilot plans, Macroscope pricing. All checked 2026-10-18.

Three things in that table are the entire reason this page exists. I will take them one at a time.

Can I pay monthly for pull request review software?

Direct answer: Yes, and in most cases without a credit card to start. CodeRabbit, Codacy, Bito, Qodo, Sourcery and DeepSource all run 14-day trials with no card required. cubic’s trial is 7 days, Graphite’s Team trial is 30 days. Monthly rates run $15 to $40 per developer. Cancellation is end-of-cycle, not refund-on-request, across every self-serve tier we checked.

The practical procurement read: you can get a real AI reviewer running on a company card for under $100 a month with no contract, which means you can evaluate it on your own PRs before you ever talk to finance. That is true of 14 of the 15 tools above.

What you cannot do on a company card, almost anywhere, is get an invoice. Sourcery states plainly that invoice billing is an Enterprise-plan feature. Codacy takes cards on self-serve and offers wire transfer only on annual plans. CodeRabbit’s Enterprise tier is available through the AWS and GCP marketplaces, which is the single most useful procurement fact on this page if your company already has committed cloud spend: marketplace purchases draw down an existing commitment and skip the new-vendor process entirely.

If you need net-30 terms and a purchase order, you are in a sales conversation. Budget two to six weeks for it, and start the trial in parallel so the evaluation is not blocked on paperwork.

AI code review tools with annual plans

Direct answer: Annual billing is available on 12 of the 15 tools we checked and is a 20% discount on CodeRabbit, Sourcery, Graphite, cubic and DeepSource. Codacy’s annual discount is ~14% ($18 versus $21). Snyk gives one month free on annual payment. Qodo Pro Team and Macroscope have no annual option. GitHub retired annual Copilot plans on 1 June 2026.

Quantify the trade before you take it. CodeRabbit Essentials is $24 per developer per month annual versus $30 monthly, so the annual commitment saves $72 per developer per year:

Team size	CodeRabbit Essentials monthly	Annual	Annual saving
5 developers	$1,800/yr	$1,440/yr	$360
10 developers	$3,600/yr	$2,880/yr	$720
25 developers	$9,000/yr	$7,200/yr	$1,800
50 developers	$18,000/yr	$14,400/yr	$3,600

Now price the optionality you are selling. In the last five months this market did all of the following:

• 8 June 2026: CodeRabbit retired the Lite and Pro Legacy plans. Any page still quoting “CodeRabbit Lite $12” is stale.
• 1 June 2026: GitHub moved all Copilot plans to usage-based billing, replaced premium requests with AI Credits at $0.01 each, and retired annual plans. Annual subscribers who do nothing land on Copilot Free at expiry.
• September 2026: CodeRabbit renamed Pro to Essentials and Pro Plus to Team, and added a new Advanced tier at $72 annual. Prices unchanged, names not.
• 23 April 2026: PR-Agent moved to independent community governance under an MIT licence, in a separate GitHub organisation from Qodo.

My read: run one monthly cycle, then convert to annual. One month of monthly pricing costs you 20% of one month, which is around $6 per developer. That is a rounding error against the cost of being locked for a year to a tier that gets renamed, re-gated or retired. Once you have a month of real usage data you also know your actual seat count, which is usually lower than your headcount, and that saves more than the annual discount does.

What a “billable seat” actually means (and why the table above is a lie)

Every comparison table in this market, including mine, lines up per-developer prices as though they measure the same thing. They do not. Here are the five definitions in play on 2026-10-18:

Vendor	Billable unit	Who you pay for	Who is free
CodeRabbit	PR author	Developers who create pull requests	Reviewers, EMs, QA, anyone who never opens a PR
Greptile	Review recipient	Any developer who received a review that billing period	Developers who shipped nothing that month
Codacy	Private-repo committer	Every Git contributor who commits to a private repo	Public-repo-only contributors
DeepSource	Team membership	Every member and admin added to DeepSource	Nobody. Membership is the trigger
Snyk	Contributing developer	Anyone who committed to a monitored private repo in the last 90 days, by Git author email	Public-repo-only committers
Qodo	Nobody	Flat $30/mo for up to 30 users	All of them, individually

This is not pedantry. Take a 20-person engineering org where 14 people open pull requests, 18 commit something to a private repo at some point in the quarter, and all 20 have accounts.

• CodeRabbit Essentials: 14 seats x $24 = $336/mo
• Greptile Pro: depends entirely on how many got reviewed that month; at 14 that is $420 base, at 18 it is $540, before any credit overage
• DeepSource Team: 20 seats x $24 = $480/mo, plus AI review usage on top
• Qodo Pro Team: $30/mo flat, plus credits

Same org, same headcount, and the seat line alone swings 16x. The number you should compare is not the sticker price, it is your own seat count under each vendor’s definition. Pull your git shortlog -sne --since="90 days ago" on private repos and your PR-author list, and price against both. They will differ by 20-40% in most teams I have seen.

Two edge cases that bite:

• Occasional contributors are brutal on seat pricing. A contractor or designer who opens two pull requests in a quarter costs a full $24 seat in each month they open one. On CodeRabbit Essentials, that is $24 for two reviews. A usage-priced tool charges them roughly $1.90.
• Snyk does not price in seats at all for scope. Its caps are project counts: 5 projects free, 100 on Team. You can have three developers and blow the project cap on day one if you run a microservice estate.

Overage mechanics: where the bill stops looking like the quote

Direct answer: Four of the big seat-priced tools meter usage on top of the seat. CodeRabbit charges $0.25 per reviewed file past its hourly limit. Greptile charges $1 per credit past 50 per seat, and credits do not pool. Bito includes 5,000 reviewed lines per seat then charges $5 per 1,000. DeepSource bills AI review entirely separately at $8 per 10K processed lines.

The details, with the gotcha stated:

CodeRabbit. Hourly review limits are 5 / 8 / 10 / 12 reviews per developer per hour on Essentials / Team / Advanced / Enterprise. Past that, metered volume is $0.25 per reviewed file, and admins can set a monthly spending cap. Augment’s teardown adds a detail CodeRabbit’s pricing page does not: the limits are rolling, and adaptive fair-use steps the refill rate down as a developer’s recent volume rises, bottoming at 1 review per hour after 60 reviews in 7 days. I could not verify that floor against CodeRabbit’s own documentation, so treat it as single-sourced.

Greptile. $30 per seat includes 50 credits. Extra credits are $1 each. The important part is that credits are per author and do not pool, so a quiet developer’s unused 40 credits never offset a busy one’s overage. And Apex-depth reviews cost 10 credits each, which means 5 Apex reviews exhausts a seat’s monthly allowance. repowise’s cost-per-100-PRs model puts Greptile Pro at $300 per 100 PRs on standard depth and $800 per 100 PRs on Apex. That 2.7x swing comes from a configuration setting, not a plan change.

Bito. 5,000 reviewed lines per seat per month, then $5 per 1,000 lines, measured on pull request diffs. A team shipping large refactors hits this fast: one 3,000-line migration PR is 60% of a developer’s monthly allowance.

DeepSource. The seat and the AI review are separate line items. Team is $24 per user per month billed yearly, which buys you deterministic static analysis, and AI review is pay-as-you-go at $8 per 10K processed LOC on Standard or $15 per 10K on Advanced. There is $100 of annual AI credit included per user, roughly $8.33 a month. Past that you are on usage.

Qodo. Pro Team’s $30 flat fee is genuinely flat, but credits at $0.012 are the real cost, they are pooled across the team, and they expire at the end of each monthly cycle with no rollover. Overage continues at the same rate up to a cap you set. Prepaid packs come in 2,500, 5,000 and 20,000 credits.

Usage-based pricing has no commitment problem and a worse one

Direct answer: Usage-priced tools have no monthly-versus-annual question, no seat minimum and nothing to cancel. They have unbounded spend instead. Macroscope is $0.05 per KB of diff with a $0.50 floor and no seat fee. Cursor Bugbot is ~$1.00-1.50 per review. Claude Code Review averages ~$15-25 per review. At 2,000 PRs a month that last one is $30,000-50,000.

Here is the model. Assumptions stated so you can re-run it with your own numbers: 10 pull requests per developer per month (the same assumption repowise uses), one review per PR, average diff 19 KB (Macroscope’s own published average review size), and seat-priced tools on annual billing.

Tool	Model	100 PRs/mo (~10 devs)	500 PRs/mo (~50 devs)	2,000 PRs/mo (~200 devs)
Macroscope	$0.05/KB, $0.50 floor	$95	$475	$1,900
Macroscope Budget Mode	$0.025/KB, $0.25 floor	$48	$238	$950
Qodo Pro Team	$30 flat + $0.012/credit	$197	Over the 30-user cap, Enterprise quote	Enterprise quote
Cursor Bugbot	~$1.25/review + Cursor seat	$125 + ~$300 seats = $425	$625 + $1,500 = $2,125	$2,500 + $6,000 = $8,500
CodeRabbit Essentials	$24/seat annual	$240	$1,200	$4,800
Greptile Pro, standard	$30/seat + credits	$300	$1,500	$6,000
Greptile Pro, Apex depth	10 credits/review	$800	$4,000	$16,000
Claude Code Review	~$15-25/review	$1,500-2,500	$7,500-12,500	$30,000-50,000

Read it this way:

Usage pricing wins below roughly 30 reviews per developer per month. Macroscope’s own break-even maths, which I checked against its published $0.95 average review cost, puts it cheaper than Greptile Pro up to 31 reviews per developer per month. At 10 PRs per developer you are well inside that. Usage pricing is the right answer for a 5-person team, a team with lumpy shipping, or an org with lots of occasional contributors.

Seat pricing wins for high-volume teams, because the marginal review is free. A developer who opens 40 PRs a month costs the same $24 as one who opens 4. Seat pricing is also the only model that gives you a flat number to put in a budget, which matters more to some finance functions than the absolute amount.

Three cautions on the usage column. First, Macroscope bills a re-review every time, so a PR that gets three rounds of commits is three charges. Second, the 10 KB minimum means tiny PRs are the worst value: a 2-line fix costs the same $0.50 as a 10 KB change, so teams that ship small stacked diffs pay a floor premium. Third, the Claude Code Review figure is cubic’s published estimate and I could not verify a per-review price from Anthropic directly. Anthropic’s Code Review went GA on 15 Oct 2026 to Claude Team and Enterprise, with $10k+ in review credits for eligible Enterprise orgs, which makes the effective price zero until the credits run out and then unknown. Treat $15-25 as an order of magnitude, not a quote. More on that in Claude Code review.

The procurement action item for any usage-priced tool is a spend cap. CodeRabbit lets admins set a monthly overage cap. Qodo lets you set a monthly spending cap. GitHub now offers user-level budgets, generally available since June 2026. Set them on day one. Usage pricing without a cap is an open credit line against a bot that decides how much work to do.

AI code review tools with a one-time payment

Direct answer: No major AI code reviewer sells a perpetual licence, and none will, because every review costs the vendor live model inference. That is a recurring cost of goods, so it cannot be funded by a one-time payment. The nearest equivalents are self-hosted open source, where you pay infrastructure instead of licence, and a few legacy static analysis vendors.

This is the clearest “no” on the page, and the structural reason matters more than the answer.

A perpetual software licence works when the vendor’s marginal cost of your usage is near zero. Classic static analysis fits: the rules ship in the binary, the analysis runs on your hardware, and your 10,000th scan costs the vendor nothing. AI review does not fit. Every pull request is a model call the vendor pays for, priced in tokens. A vendor selling you a perpetual licence would be committing to fund your inference forever against a single payment. Nobody is going to do that.

So your real options for avoiding a subscription are:

Self-hosted open source. You swap a licence fee for infrastructure and token costs.

• PR-Agent - MIT licensed, transferred to independent community governance under The-PR-Agent organisation on 23 April 2026, with Qodo remaining a sponsor. 13.4k GitHub stars as of mid-October 2026. Runs as CLI, Docker, GitHub Action or webhook server. Supports GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps and Gitea. Backs onto OpenAI, Claude, Gemini or local models via Ollama. The README states explicitly that it “is not the Qodo free tier.”
• Kodus - AGPLv3 as of September 2026, free to self-host at any team size. Works with GitHub Enterprise Server and GitLab Self-Managed, and any OpenAI-compatible endpoint including in-network models via vLLM, Ollama, TGI or LiteLLM.

Both are genuinely free of licence cost. Neither is free of cost. You are paying LLM tokens, compute, and the engineering time to run it, which lands on a different budget line and is still recurring. See open source AI code review tools for the full set.

Legacy static analysis with perpetual terms. SciTools Understand has historically been sold as a permanent licence with optional annual maintenance. Klocwork lists a perpetual licence as an option, but it is quote-only, there is no published rate card and no single-seat option. PVS-Studio is often described as offering one-time payment and does not: its own licensing page describes 1-year and 2-year terms with renewal at 80% of base price. I could not verify current Understand or Klocwork list prices from the vendors directly, so I am not quoting numbers.

What a perpetual licence would not get you anyway. None of these are AI reviewers. They are deterministic rule engines. If you want the honest architectural comparison, SonarQube Community Build is free and self-hosted forever but analyses the main branch only, with no pull request analysis, and its AI features are Enterprise-tier. That is the shape of the trade: free and permanent, or AI and recurring. Not both.

Can I pay for an AI code review tool per repository?

Direct answer: Essentially no, not in AI code review. Per-repository and per-project pricing survives in classic static analysis. Snyk meters in project counts, with 5 projects free and 100 on Team. SonarQube Cloud prices per line of code, free up to 50k LOC on private projects. Every mainstream AI reviewer prices per seat, per credit or per byte of diff.

What people usually mean when they ask this is one of two things, and they have different answers.

“I have one repo and 15 developers, can I pay once for the repo?” No. Every seat-priced vendor will charge you 15 times, except Qodo’s flat $30 Pro Team and the usage-priced tools. If you have one repo and many developers, Qodo Pro Team at $30 flat for up to 30 users is the cheapest structure in the market, and Macroscope’s no-seat model is second.

“I have 40 repos and 4 developers, am I going to get charged per repo?” Mostly no, but check the repo caps. CodeRabbit gates linked repositories by tier: 1 on Essentials, 5 on Team, 10 on Advanced, 20 on Enterprise. That is the single most overlooked constraint in CodeRabbit’s pricing, because $24 a month looks cheap until you realise Essentials covers one repository. A 4-developer team with 40 repos cannot use Essentials at all. Greptile Starter and Pro advertise unlimited repositories. cubic’s Starter free tier is 20 reviews per month per GitHub org, not per developer.

The closest things to true per-repo or per-codebase pricing:

Tool	Unit	Free tier	Entry paid price
Snyk	Projects	5 projects, 100 Snyk Code tests/mo	Team from $25/contributing dev/mo, 100 projects
SonarQube Cloud	Lines of code	Up to 50k LOC on private projects, never expires, includes PR analysis	Team from $34/mo up to 100k LOC
Codacy	Seats, with a project trigger	Developer tier free forever	Team from $18/dev/mo; Business at 30+ devs or 100+ private projects
Macroscope	KB of diff	Open source free; $100 credit on new workspaces	$0.05/KB, $0.50 floor

SonarQube Cloud’s free tier is the one most people miss: 50k lines of code on private projects, never expires, and it includes pull request analysis. That is a genuinely different offer from the self-hosted Community Build, which does not do PR analysis at all.

Hidden line items that are not on anyone’s pricing page

GitHub Copilot bills you twice for the same review. Since 1 June 2026, Copilot code review on private repositories consumes GitHub Actions minutes in addition to GitHub AI Credits. The reason is architectural: Copilot code review moved to an agentic architecture that runs on GitHub Actions, so reviewing a PR is an Actions workflow like any other. GitHub’s changelog confirmed the date and the 1 June changelog confirmed it shipped. Public repo minutes remain free.

The numbers you need to model it: GitHub’s docs estimate $0.05-$1 of AI Credits for a Lite review and $0.25-$5 for a Balanced review, which is the default. Standard Linux Actions runners are about $0.006 per minute past your included allowance. Included minutes are 2,000 on Free, 3,000 on Pro and Team, 50,000 on Enterprise Cloud. GitHub publishes no figure for minutes consumed per review, which means this line item is genuinely unmodellable from public data. Larger runners cost more; self-hosted runners cost no Actions minutes at all, which is the mitigation. Full detail in GitHub Copilot pricing.

Copilot code review is not in every Copilot plan. On individual plans it starts at Pro+ ($39/mo). Free and Pro do not include it. If your assumption was “we already pay for Copilot so review is free”, check which plan.

Cursor Bugbot needs a Cursor seat. The ~$1.00-1.50 per review is on top of a Cursor Premium plan at $30/month, where AI code reviews via Bugbot first appear. Bugbot is not sold standalone.

Self-hosting is a paid add-on, not a free choice. Bito charges $5 per seat on top of Professional for self-hosting. CodeRabbit’s self-hosted deployment requires 500+ seats. GitLab Duo’s self-hosted models reached GA in GitLab 18.4. Copilot can run validation on self-hosted Actions runners, but the review service itself stays in GitHub’s cloud, so it is not truly self-hosted.

DeepSource’s AI review is not in the seat price. Worth repeating because the $24 figure circulates without the caveat.

How we verified this

What we checked, and where. On 2026-10-18 we fetched the live pricing pages for CodeRabbit, Greptile, Sourcery, Codacy, Bito, cubic, Graphite, DeepSource, Qodo, Snyk, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Macroscope and SonarQube Cloud, plus CodeRabbit’s subscription-management documentation and Bito’s billing documentation. We cross-checked every figure against at least one third-party teardown: cubic’s pricing roundup, repowise’s cost-per-100-PRs model, Macroscope’s CodeRabbit teardown and Augment’s CodeRabbit limits guide.

Note on vendor-published sources. cubic, repowise, Macroscope, Augment and critique.sh all publish pricing comparisons and all sell competing products. Their competitor numbers were accurate where we could check them against the primary source. Their framing is not neutral, and in each case the conclusion favours the publisher. We use them for corroboration, never as the primary source for a price.

What we could not verify.

• CodeRabbit Advanced monthly price. Third parties list $90. CodeRabbit’s own pricing page publishes only the $72 annual rate and no monthly figure. Unverified.
• CodeAnt Premium annual versus monthly. $24/user/mo is widely listed as the annual rate, and at least one directory reports the billing toggle also showing $30. CodeAnt’s pricing page did not render its comparison table for us. Treat $24 as annual, unconfirmed.
• CodeRabbit’s adaptive fair-use floor of 1 review per hour after 60 reviews in 7 days. Single-sourced to Augment. Not in CodeRabbit’s own docs as far as we could find.
• Purchase order and net-terms acceptance below the enterprise tier. Only Sourcery states its policy explicitly (Enterprise only). Nobody else publishes it. Assume enterprise-only and ask.
• Claude Code Review per-review cost. The ~$15-25 figure is cubic’s estimate. Anthropic publishes no per-review price. Unverified.
• GitHub Actions minutes consumed per Copilot review. GitHub explicitly does not publish this. Unmodellable from public data.
• Greptile’s annual discount. Greptile publishes only the $30 monthly Pro rate and says annual and multi-year are custom. No published percentage.
• SciTools Understand and Klocwork perpetual licence prices. Third-party figures exist and are years old. We did not quote them.

What contradicts commonly published figures. Snyk’s Enterprise tier is no longer a straightforward per-developer price. It is now a prepaid credit platform subscription where 1 credit = $1 and Snyk Code meters at 1.0 credit per active contributor per day. The $1,260 per contributing developer per year Ignite figure comes from third-party aggregators, not Snyk’s own plans page, and Snyk’s page did not show an explicit “unlimited projects” claim for Ignite. Price Snyk from a quote, not a table.

Recommendations

Criteria: minimising commitment risk and making the bill predictable. Not review quality. For quality, see best AI PR review tools.

If you need to start today on a card with zero commitment: Macroscope. No seats, no minimum, no annual term, $100 of credit on a new workspace, and $0.05 per KB of diff with a $0.50 floor. The average review costs $0.95 and over half cost $0.50 or less, per Macroscope’s own published figures. You can evaluate it on real PRs for under $20 and there is nothing to cancel.

If you want the lowest predictable monthly number for a small team: Qodo Pro Team at $30 flat per month for up to 30 users, billed monthly with no annual commitment. It is the only flat-fee structure in the market and it is 8x cheaper than seat-pricing the same 10-developer team. The catch is credits at $0.012 that expire monthly, and a hard 30-user cliff into an Enterprise quote.

If you want the cheapest real seat price: Sourcery Pro at $12 per developer per month on annual billing, or Bito Team at the same $12. Sourcery is free forever on public repositories and its trial is 14 days org-wide with no card. Bito’s $12 comes with a 5,000-line allowance and a $5-per-1,000 overage, so it is only genuinely $12 if your diffs are small.

If you are already paying for Copilot: use Copilot code review first, but check two things. Your plan must be Pro+ or above on individual tiers, and your private-repo reviews now draw Actions minutes you cannot forecast. Put the review workflow on a self-hosted runner if your Actions budget is tight.

If finance requires an invoice and a PO: budget for the enterprise tier regardless of your size, or buy through AWS or GCP Marketplace to draw down existing committed cloud spend. CodeRabbit Enterprise is available both ways. This is the single fastest procurement path in the market if you already have a cloud commitment.

If you want no subscription at all: self-host PR-Agent (MIT) or Kodus (AGPLv3). Be honest in the business case that you are moving cost from a licence line to a token-and-infrastructure line, not eliminating it, and that you are taking on the maintenance.

Who should sign an annual contract: teams that have already run a full monthly cycle, know their real seat count under the vendor’s specific definition, and have confirmed the repo cap on their tier covers their estate. Everyone else should pay the 20% premium for one month and spend it buying information.

For what this looks like under 20 developers with the ROI arithmetic worked out, read AI code review for small teams. For the single-vendor deep dives, see CodeRabbit pricing, Greptile pricing, Qodo pricing and AI coding tools price comparison.