AI Code Review Tools With a Free Trial (2026)

Direct answer

11 of the 51 AI code review tools we track run a conventional time-boxed free trial. 14 days is the market standard - CodeRabbit, Qodo, Greptile Pro, Codacy, DeepSource, Sourcery, Bito Professional, CodeAnt AI, Korbit Max, Gitar Pro and Cursor Bugbot all publish 14 days. cubic is shorter at 7. Seven state no credit card. Four replace the clock with credits instead. The number that actually matters is what happens on day 15, and it varies from “you keep a free tier” to “hard stop”. Verified 2026-10-18.

AI code review tools with a free trial

Direct answer: 14 days is the standard AI code review trial. CodeRabbit, Qodo, Greptile Pro, Codacy, DeepSource, Sourcery, Bito Professional, CodeAnt AI, Korbit Max, Gitar Pro and Cursor Bugbot all publish 14 days; cubic publishes 7. CodeRabbit, Qodo, Codacy, DeepSource, Sourcery, Bito and CodeAnt require no card. Augment Code is the only tool we found that requires one. Verified 2026-10-18.

This article is about the clock. A free trial is a time-boxed grant of a paid tier. A free tier is a permanent allowance with a cap, and it is a completely different purchase decision - we cover it separately in free AI code review tools: what you actually get for $0.

Competing roundups of this topic cover 8 to 12 tools and usually give you one column: “free trial: yes”. That column is useless. Below is the data we would have wanted when we last ran a bake-off.

The trial table

Every row verified against the vendor’s own pricing page or docs on 2026-10-18. Where a vendor’s pricing page and its docs disagree, we say so in the row.

Tool	Trial length	Card required	Quota during trial	Gated during the trial	What happens on day 15
CodeRabbit	14 days	No per docs and FAQ; pricing page copy is ambiguous	Higher-tier review velocity, up to 10 reviews/dev/hour	Self-hosting (Enterprise, 500+ seats), SSO, custom RBAC, audit logging, multi-org	Org downgrades to Free at renewal. Public repos free forever; private code drops to 1 PR review/hour summary-only, 3 IDE and 3 CLI reviews/hour
Qodo	14 days	No	Unlimited reviews, unlimited credits	On-prem and single-tenant, SSO/SAML, BYOK, audit logs, governance dashboard	Hard stop. No permanent free tier. Pro Team is $30/mo for up to 30 users, credits at $0.012 each
Greptile	14 days on Pro	Not stated on pricing page	Pro: 50 credits per seat/mo	Enterprise deployment options	Falls back to Starter: 1 active developer, 50 credits/mo
cubic	7 days on Team, Pro and Max	No	Plan line-review allowance	CLI is not on Starter, so no local or CI reviews	Falls back to Starter: 20 PR reviews/mo per GitHub org
Codacy	14 days	No	Team features, up to 30 devs, up to 100 private repos	Business tier: DAST, container scanning, SSO/SAML, audit logs, AI Risk Hub	Developer tier free forever, but IDE-only. No cloud-hosted PR scans
DeepSource	14 days	No	Up to $50 bundled AI Review credits	Self-hosted deployment, SSO (Enterprise)	Open Source plan: public repos unlimited, 1,000 PRs/mo reviewed. Private repos not included
Sourcery	14 days, org-wide	No	Pro and Team features on private repos	Enterprise deployment and support	Free plan is public repos only on GitHub and GitLab
Bito	14 days on Professional	No	5,000 lines per seat/mo	Enterprise on-prem and self-host	Hard stop for reviews. Team $12/mo annual ($15 monthly), overage $5 per 1,000 lines
CodeAnt AI	14 days, 100 PR reviews	No	100 PR reviews	High and Critical AI pentest findings are paywalled; Low and Medium always free	Premium $24/user/mo. Free for open source on request
Korbit	14 days on Max	No (reported, not stated on pricing page)	Korbit Max features	Enterprise features	Pro $12/user/mo annual ($15 monthly), Max $18 ($24). Max free for open source
Gitar	14 days on Pro	No	Full AI review, auto-fix, CI failure diagnosis, agentic workflows	Enterprise outcome-based per-PR pricing	Core $20/user/mo, Pro $40, annual. Free Pro features for OSI-licensed OSS
Cursor Bugbot	14 days	Effectively yes - runs inside a Cursor subscription	Usage-based	Listed from Cursor Premium ($30/mo) upward; absent on Free and Plus	Bills per run. Roughly $1.00 to $1.50 per average review. No free tier
SonarQube Cloud	14 days on Team	No commitment stated	Team features including AI CodeFix	AI features are paid-tier	Free tier: 5 users, 50k private LOC, unlimited public projects
Macroscope	No clock. $100 usage credit per new workspace	No	~100 reviews at the average $0.95	Nothing seat-gated; no seat fees at all	Credit burns down, then $0.05 per KB of diff, $0.50 floor per review
Snyk Code	No trial clock; Free plan is permanent	No	Free: 5 projects, 100 Snyk Code tests/mo	Jira integration, higher limits	Stays free at 5 projects. Team from $25/mo at 100 projects
Semgrep	No trial; Free Edition is permanent	No	10 contributors, 10 private repos, 60 AI credits total	Pro rules depth, higher repo caps	Stays free. Teams from $30/contributor/mo
Graphite	Team trial offered, length not published	Not published	”Limited AI Reviews” on Hobby, number not published	Hobby is personal-account repos only	Hobby stays free. Starter $20/user/mo, Team $40, annual
Augment Code	No clock. 30,000 credits	Yes	30,000 credits	Multi-region compute, SSO/OIDC/SCIM (Enterprise)	Standard $20/mo flat up to 50 seats, Business $100/mo flat
Claude Code Review	No public trial	Via a Team or Enterprise plan	Usage-based; Enterprise credit grants for eligible orgs	Not available on Claude Free or Pro	Usage-based, reportedly $15 to $25 per review
Ito	No clock. First 20 reviews free	No	20 reviews	GitHub only, no GitLab	Pro $40/mo, 50 reviews included per seat, $1 per extra review
PR-Agent	No trial. MIT licensed	No	Unlimited, you pay model costs	Nothing. It is MIT	Still yours. Model and infra costs are on you

Three things in that table are worth saying out loud.

The 14-day consensus is not a coincidence, it is a copy. Eleven vendors landed on the same number because they are all copying each other’s funnel, not because 14 days is the right length for a code review evaluation. It is not. The evaluation protocol that actually works needs two weeks of real PR volume with zero slack, and the fortnight your team spends in a release freeze is a fortnight of trial you do not get back.

“No credit card” is the strongest signal in the table. It is the difference between a trial that lapses and a trial that converts whether you noticed or not. CodeRabbit’s docs are the cleanest here: the organisation “downgrades to the Free plan at renewal” if you do not activate. Augment Code sits at the opposite end, requiring a valid card for its 30,000-credit grant.

Credit grants beat clocks for honest evaluation. Macroscope’s $100 per new workspace and DeepSource’s up-to-$50 of bundled AI Review credits both let you evaluate at your own pace instead of the vendor’s. Macroscope’s model is the purest version: no seats, no tiers, $0.05 per KB of diff reviewed with a $0.50 floor, and a $100 credit that a 2-to-5-person team can stretch across weeks. If you want the detail on usage billing, we broke it down in automated code review tools.

What gets gated during a trial

The gating pattern is consistent across the market and it is almost never about review quality. Vendors give you the full reviewer and withhold the controls:

• Deployment model. Self-hosting is the most heavily gated feature in this market. CodeRabbit requires Enterprise and 500 or more seats. Qodo puts on-prem and single-tenant on Enterprise. DeepSource puts self-hosted on Enterprise. If self-hosting is a requirement, a trial will not demonstrate it to you - you will be evaluating the cloud product and buying something you have never run. See AI code review for enterprise teams for how to handle that.
• Identity and audit. SSO/SAML, custom RBAC and audit logging sit on Enterprise at CodeRabbit, Qodo and Codacy. Expect to pilot without them.
• Published implementation docs. CodeRabbit’s self-hosted deployment and configuration instructions are provided to customers during onboarding rather than published openly. You cannot assess implementation complexity before you sign. That is worth naming in a procurement conversation.
• The CLI. cubic’s Starter plan excludes the CLI, so local and CI-pipeline reviews are paid-only. If your evaluation plan depends on running the tool in CI, check this first.

What does not get gated

Review quality. Every trial we examined gives you the real reviewer on real models, often at a higher tier than you will buy. CodeRabbit’s trial runs at Advanced-tier velocity. Qodo’s trial is explicitly unlimited reviews and unlimited credits. Gitar’s trial is full Pro.

That is good for you and it creates one trap: the trial is faster and more generous than the plan you will actually be on. If you evaluate on CodeRabbit’s trial velocity of 10 reviews per developer per hour and then buy Essentials at 5, you have changed the product. Note the tier you trialled and the tier you are buying, and ask whether the rate limit differs. The full breakdown is in CodeRabbit pricing.

Can I try an AI code review tool without connecting my repository?

Direct answer: Not for hosted pull request reviewers. Every one we track requires a Git App or OAuth install with read access to at least one repo, because it is a webhook listener. Four repo-free paths exist: Codacy’s free IDE-only Developer tier, CodeRabbit’s CLI on your local tree, PR-Agent as a local MIT-licensed CLI, and Semgrep’s CLI. Verified 2026-10-18.

This is the question buyers actually ask and the one competing articles skip. The honest answer is uncomfortable, so here it is in full.

An AI PR reviewer is architecturally a webhook consumer. It needs to receive the pull request event, fetch the diff, usually index surrounding files for context, and post a comment back. There is no version of that which works without read access to a repository. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling you a linter.

What you can control is blast radius. Here is every path we found, with what it actually proves.

Evaluation path	Tools that support it	What you get	What it cannot tell you
IDE-only, no Git connection	Codacy Developer tier (free forever, 38 languages, VS Code / JetBrains / Cursor), Sourcery IDE extension, Cursor in-editor review	Real findings on real code with zero repo access granted	Nothing about PR-thread behaviour, comment volume on a full diff, or merge-gate logic
CLI against a local clone	CodeRabbit CLI (free with an account, 3 reviews/hour on Free), PR-Agent (MIT, your own model key), Semgrep CLI, Qodo CLI	Reviews of uncommitted, staged or branch changes on your actual codebase	Whether the hosted service’s context indexing finds cross-file issues the local run misses
Paste a diff into a sandbox	MicroReview publishes a live paste-a-diff sandbox; snippet size is capped and reviews are limited per hour	A 30-second smell test of comment style and tone	Everything that matters. A snippet has no repo context
Self-host on throwaway infra	PR-Agent (MIT), Kodus (AGPLv3), Vercel’s OpenReview (open source, beta)	Full control, no vendor data flow at all	How the commercial hosted products behave, which is usually what you are comparing against
Scratch repo, App scoped to one repo	Any GitHub App reviewer - installs let you select specific repositories rather than all	Validates plumbing: webhook delivery, permission scope, comment formatting, merge-blocking	Planted-bug recall and false-positive rate on code with real history and real consumers

Our recommendation, stated plainly: use a scratch repo to validate plumbing, then move to a real but low-blast-radius repository for the quality evaluation. A scratch repo with four files and no history will make every tool look good, because the failure mode you care about - missing a cross-file consequence in a 400k-line codebase - cannot occur there.

If granting repo access is genuinely blocked by policy rather than nerves, your realistic shortlist is the self-hosted open-source set. PR-Agent was relicensed to MIT in August 2026 and is community-maintained; it runs as a CLI, Docker image, GitHub Action or webhook server against GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps and Gitea, with OpenAI, Claude, Gemini or local models via Ollama. Kodus moved to AGPLv3 in September 2026 and self-hosts free at any team size via Docker Compose or Kubernetes. We cover the trade-offs in open source AI code review tools.

One thing nobody publishes: a vendor-hosted demo repository. We looked for pre-seeded demo repos with example pull requests at CodeRabbit, Qodo, Greptile, cubic, Codacy, DeepSource and Gitar on 2026-10-18 and found none. That is a real gap. If you are a vendor reading this, it is the single cheapest thing you could ship to shorten your sales cycle.

What should I prepare before getting an AI code review demo?

Direct answer: Four artefacts and four questions. Bring your median time-to-merge, your median human review comments per PR and how many caused a code change, three review rules written in plain English, and one real PR that changes a shared interface. Then ask: what is the billing unit, how is a seat defined, what is gated versus Enterprise, and will you sign a BAA?

A demo is a performance on a codebase the vendor chose. A reviewer that looks brilliant on a clean single-language TypeScript repo can fall apart on a nine-year-old multi-language monorepo. The only way to get value out of the hour is to make it about your numbers.

The four artefacts

1. A baseline, captured before the bot ever runs. Median time-to-merge, median human review comments per PR, and crucially how many of those comments led to an actual code change. Without the third number you cannot distinguish “the tool found things” from “the tool added noise”. Escaped defect count over the last quarter if you track it.

2. Three review rules in plain English. Not a config file. Three sentences like “flag any new database query inside a loop”, “require a test file for any change under src/billing/”, “never comment on formatting, we have Prettier”. These test configurability, which is the dimension that separates tools after week one. CodeRabbit reads .coderabbit.yaml, Cursor Bugbot walks up from changed files looking for BUGBOT.md, Kodus has “Kody Rules”, PR-Agent reads .pr_agent.toml. Ask to see your three rules implemented live.

3. One real PR that changes a shared interface or API contract. This is the single highest-signal test in the whole evaluation. Does the reviewer flag the consumers elsewhere in the codebase that will break? Context-engine marketing claims live or die here. Watch simultaneously for the inverse failure: suggestions that call helper functions which do not exist in your project.

4. A list of five recent real PRs for a zero-configuration noise test. Run the tool with no setup on all five and count comments. Then apply your three rules and check it enforces exactly those and stopped commenting on things you never asked about.

The four questions

“What is the billing unit - per run or per pull request?” This is where budgets die. Cursor Bugbot bills per run and re-reviews on every PR update by default, so a PR that goes five rounds bills five times at roughly $1.00 to $1.50 each. Anthropic’s Code Review is usage-based at a reported $15 to $25 per review, and triggering on every push charges multiple reviews for one PR. Macroscope bills per review too and is explicit that a PR re-reviewed after new commits is billed each time, but caps it: $10 per review, $50 per PR, plus a monthly workspace ceiling. Ask for the caps in writing.

“How do you define a seat?” Greptile’s definition is unusually consequential: a seat is any developer who received a review in that billing period, and credits are per author and do not pool, so a quiet month for one dev does not subsidise a loud month for another. Codacy requires a seat for every Git contributor who commits to a private repo you have added. CodeRabbit bills on contributing developers who create pull requests. These three definitions produce three different invoices from the same team. See Greptile pricing and CodeRabbit vs Greptile.

“What exactly is gated between my tier and Enterprise?” Get the list before the trial, not during. If self-hosting, SSO or audit logs are requirements, find out now that CodeRabbit gates self-hosting at 500+ seats and that Qodo’s Enterprise tier begins at 30 users.

“Will you sign a BAA, and what is your ISO/IEC 42001 status?” If you handle PHI, note that “HIPAA certified” is not a real certification scheme - HIPAA compliance requires a signed Business Associate Agreement, and a SOC 2 report alone does not satisfy it. ISO/IEC 42001:2023 is the AI-specific management standard covering model integrity, training-data security and AI pipeline risk, which traditional audits do not reach. Verify against the vendor’s trust centre, never against a comparison table, including ours. More on this in AI code review security.

One thing not to do

Do not run two reviewers on the same pull requests simultaneously. Two bots on one PR roughly doubles comment volume and contaminates your time-to-merge measurement, which is the number you will need to justify the spend. Run one tool per repo on two comparable repos, or the same repo with a hard switchover date.

AI code review tools with onboarding support

Direct answer: Dedicated onboarding is an Enterprise entitlement almost everywhere, and the entry threshold varies 17x. Qodo’s Enterprise starts at 30 users with a dedicated CSM and a published 2-business-day SLA. CodeRabbit puts SLA support and dedicated customer success on Enterprise only and gates self-hosting at 500+ seats. CodeAnt AI advertises white-glove onboarding from $24/user Premium. Verified 2026-10-18.

“Onboarding support” is sold at two completely different price points and buyers routinely discover this at the wrong moment.

Tool	Where dedicated onboarding or CSM sits	Published SLA	Entry threshold	Notes
Qodo	Enterprise: dedicated CSM, priority support	2 business days	30+ users	The lowest Enterprise threshold we found among the major vendors
CodeRabbit	Enterprise only: SLA support, dedicated customer success, technical enablement	SLA referenced, terms not published	Enterprise, custom	Self-hosting needs 500+ seats, so mid-size orgs can buy a CSM but not the deployment model
CodeAnt AI	White-glove onboarding advertised from $24/user Premium; dedicated success manager on Enterprise	Not published	Premium tier	Lowest published entry point for hands-on onboarding
Codacy	Business: dedicated customer success manager	Not published	Business, custom	Team tier tops out at 30 devs and 100 private repos
Semgrep	Enterprise: dedicated account manager, tailored onboarding	Not published	Enterprise, custom	Free Edition and Teams are self-serve
DeepSource	Enterprise: dedicated support, self-hosted, SSO	Not published	Enterprise, custom	Team tier is self-serve at $24/user/mo yearly
Greptile	Enterprise, custom	Not published	Enterprise, custom	50% discount for pre-Series A startups under $2M revenue
Augment Code	Enterprise: dedicated support, multi-region	Not published	Enterprise, custom	Standard and Business are flat-rate self-serve
Macroscope	No sales motion required	n/a	None	Usage-billed, no seats, $100 workspace credit
Kodus	No sales motion required	n/a	None	AGPLv3 self-host, no seat minimums

Two honest caveats on that table.

We could not verify a single published entitlement to a shared Slack Connect support channel at any vendor in this market as of 2026-10-18. Several vendors ship Slack integrations as product features - CodeRabbit offers review-queue digests and PR actions in Slack from the Team tier up - but that is workflow, not support. If a dedicated vendor channel matters to you, negotiate it into the agreement; do not assume it.

Onboarding quality is the least verifiable claim in this market. There is no independent benchmark of vendor support responsiveness for AI code review tools, and we are not going to invent one. What we will say is that CodeRabbit’s support quality draws recurring complaints on G2 consistent enough that a team needing hands-on onboarding should ask for named references, not a logo wall.

When to use a trial and when to use a free tier

These are different purchases and the choice is usually obvious once stated:

Use a trial when budget is already approved and you are picking between two finalists. You want the full product, the real rate limits, and two weeks of real PR volume. CodeRabbit’s no-card 14 days and Qodo’s unlimited-credit 14 days are the two most generous.

Use a permanent free tier when you have no budget, or when you need longer than 14 days. A free tier does not expire mid-sprint. cubic Starter’s 20 PR reviews a month per org, Greptile Starter’s 1 developer and 50 credits, Codacy’s free Developer tier, Semgrep Free Edition’s 10 contributors and SonarQube Cloud’s 5 users at 50k private lines all let you move at your own speed. The full set of permanent $0 options, with the honest caveat that very few AI PR reviewers are free for private code, is in free AI code review tools: what you actually get for $0.

Use a credit grant when you want neither a clock nor a cap. Macroscope’s $100 per workspace, DeepSource’s up to $50 of AI Review credits and Ito’s first 20 reviews are the three we found.

How we verified this

What we checked. On 2026-10-18 we read the live pricing pages and, where published, the product docs for CodeRabbit, Qodo, Greptile, cubic, Codacy, DeepSource, Sourcery, Bito, CodeAnt AI, Korbit, Gitar, Cursor, SonarQube Cloud, Macroscope, Snyk, Semgrep, Graphite, Augment Code and Ito. We recorded trial length, card requirement, quota, gated features and post-trial behaviour for each.

Primary sources we leaned on. CodeRabbit pricing and subscription docs, Greptile pricing, Qodo pricing, Codacy pricing, DeepSource pricing, Sourcery pricing, Semgrep pricing, Snyk plans, Graphite pricing, Cursor pricing and Bugbot docs.

Conflicts we found and how we handled them.

• CodeRabbit’s card requirement. The marketing pricing page reads ambiguously enough that a careful reader could conclude a card is needed for the trial. CodeRabbit’s own FAQ and subscription-management docs both state no credit card is required, and the docs describe a downgrade to Free at renewal rather than an auto-charge. We report the docs as authoritative and flag the pricing page as unclear.
• Which tier CodeRabbit’s trial runs on. The FAQ describes a Team trial; the subscription docs describe a 14-day Advanced trial. We could not resolve which is current. Ask at signup.
• cubic’s free tier size. cubic’s own site and blog say 20 PR reviews a month per GitHub org. Some third-party pricing snapshots and directories say 40. We report 20 because it is vendor-published, and we flag the conflict.
• cubic’s prices. cubic’s pricing page currently shows Team $40, Pro $99 and Max $200 per developer per month with a 20% annual discount, which works out to roughly $32, $79 and $160 annually. Other sources cite Team at $30 annual. We report the live monthly figures and the 20% discount rather than pick a derived number.
• Cursor Bugbot’s commercial model changed in 2026. Bugbot’s standalone $40-per-seat plan was removed and it moved to pure usage billing, effective at each customer’s first renewal after 8 June 2026. Legacy annual seat plans run to that renewal. Cursor’s pricing page now lists “AI code reviews via Bugbot” from the Premium plan at $30/month upward and shows a dash on Free and Plus, and it does not publish a per-run rate. The $1.00 to $1.50 average comes from Cursor’s own help documentation, not from us.
• Gemini Code Assist’s individual tier. One source reports the individuals tier stopped serving requests on 18 June 2026 with users redirected to Antigravity; another 2026-dated page still advertises a free tier. We could not resolve this and have excluded Gemini Code Assist from the trial table rather than guess.

What we could not verify.

• Graphite’s trial length and card requirement. Neither is published on the pricing page. The FAQ poses the question and the answer is not rendered in the page source we fetched. Unverified.
• Graphite’s Hobby AI review limit. The pricing page says “Limited AI Reviews” with no number. A Graphite guide elsewhere on their site states the Agent is free for up to 100 pull request reviews a month, but we could not confirm that figure applies to the Hobby plan. Unverified.
• Greptile’s card requirement for the Pro trial. Not stated on the pricing page. Unverified.
• Korbit’s card requirement. Reported as no-card by third parties, not stated on Korbit’s own pricing page. Unverified.
• CodeAnt AI’s full plan table. The pricing page confirms a 14-day no-card trial and 100% off for open source, but the plan comparison table did not render in our fetch. The $24/user Premium figure comes from third-party roundups and our prior research, not from a live read on 2026-10-18.
• Panto’s trial length. Panto’s docs confirm a free trial exists for all paid plans but publish no length. Third parties cite 14 days and 18 days. Unverified, and Panto’s review-product pricing is not publicly posted at all.
• Any vendor-hosted demo repository. We searched for pre-seeded demo repos at seven major vendors and found none. Absence of evidence, but we looked.
• Onboarding and support quality. No independent benchmark exists. We report what tier each entitlement sits on and nothing about whether it is good.

Our conflict of interest, stated. Gitar is a paying sponsor of aicodereview.cc and Ito is an unpaid editorial baseline partner. Neither arrangement changes a row in the tables above. Gitar’s 14-day no-card Pro trial is listed on the same terms as everyone else’s, and we will note here, as we do everywhere review quality is discussed, that Gitar has no published third-party benchmark. Neither does Ito.

Recommendations

Criteria stated up front: longest usable evaluation window, lowest commitment friction, and whether day 15 leaves you with anything.

If you want the lowest-risk 14 days: CodeRabbit. No card per their docs, the trial runs at a higher tier than you will buy, and day 15 drops you to a free plan rather than a wall - public repos stay free forever and you retain 3 IDE and 3 CLI reviews an hour on private code. The catch to go in with your eyes open about: the trial’s review velocity is higher than Essentials’, and self-hosting needs 500+ seats.

If you want the most generous 14 days: Qodo. Unlimited reviews and unlimited credits during the trial, no card, and no rate limits to work around. The honest downside is that day 15 is a hard stop - there is no permanent free tier - so schedule the decision, do not drift into it.

If 14 days is not enough: Macroscope. $100 of usage credit on every new workspace, no clock, no seats, $0.05 per KB of diff with a $0.50 floor and hard caps at $10 per review and $50 per PR. A 2-to-5-person team can run this for weeks. This is the model we would pick for an unhurried evaluation, and the per-review billing forces you to think about re-review cost early rather than at renewal.

If you need to evaluate without granting repo access: Codacy Developer tier first, then PR-Agent. Codacy’s free Developer tier runs in your IDE across 38 languages with no Git connection at all, which gets you real findings on real code in ten minutes. Then self-host MIT-licensed PR-Agent against a clone to see PR-shaped output without a vendor in the data path. Neither replaces a real trial, and we would not pretend otherwise.

If you need onboarding support below enterprise scale: Qodo at 30+ users, or CodeAnt AI at $24/user. Qodo publishes the only concrete SLA we found - 2 business days - at the lowest Enterprise threshold in the market. CodeAnt AI advertises white-glove onboarding from its Premium tier, which is the cheapest published entry point, though we could not confirm its full plan table live on 2026-10-18.

If your real question is “what can I get for $0 permanently”, you are reading the wrong article. Go to free AI code review tools: what you actually get for $0, where the headline finding is that very few AI PR reviewers are free for private code. For the broader shortlist with review-quality evidence rather than commercial terms, see the best AI code review tools and the state of AI code review in 2026.