The Cheapest AI Code Review Tools Worth Running (2026)

Direct answer

For 10 developers, the real annual range is $0 to about $9,000 for the same job. Six options are genuinely free: self-hosted PR-Agent (MIT since 23 April 2026) and Kodus (AGPLv3), plus SonarQube Cloud free, CodeRabbit on public repos, Greptile Starter and Codacy Developer. A seventh, cubic Starter, was documented in cubic’s blog but had vanished from its live pricing page by 2026-10-18. The cheapest paid seat is $12/dev/mo annual. Most of the market sits at $24. All prices verified 2026-10-18.

The standard: cheap only counts if it is still worth running

Price-first lists usually rank on sticker price and stop. That produces a list topped by free tiers you cannot actually use - a free tier limited to 1 active developer is not a 10-developer answer, and a $24 seat with separately metered AI review is not a $24 tool.

So two rules govern this page.

Rule one: rank on real annual cost for a 10-developer team, and show the arithmetic. Seat price times 10 times 12, plus whatever is metered on top, plus whatever tier you are forced into by a cap rather than by a feature.

Rule two: a tool only makes the list if it performs a pull request review on a real diff. That excludes Codacy Developer from the ranked table even though it is free forever, because it is an IDE-focused tier, not a pull request reviewer. It excludes SonarQube Community Build, which analyses the main branch only - Sonar’s own docs say “SonarQube Community Build cannot analyze pull requests” and “Developer Edition is the minimum required for branch analysis and pull request analysis.” And it excludes Tabby and Refact.ai, which are coding assistants with no documented pull request review feature at all.

One thing we cannot do, and will say up front rather than bury: we cannot rank these on quality, because no party without a commercial stake has published a false-positive rate, precision figure or noise measurement for any shipping commercial AI code reviewer. Every published benchmark in this market was run by a vendor that won it. So “worth running” here means “performs a real review, within limits you can actually live with”, not “scored well in an independent test”. That test does not exist.

If you want the full rate card rather than the cheap end, we maintain the AI code review price book and a cost model in what does AI code review cost.

The ranking: real annual cost for 10 developers

Tool and plan	Published unit price	10-dev annual base	Metered on top?	The cap that bites
PR-Agent self-hosted	$0, MIT since 23 Apr 2026	$0	Inference plus CI minutes	You operate it
Kodus self-hosted	$0, AGPLv3 since Sept 2026	$0	Inference	AGPL source-disclosure obligations
SonarQube Cloud Free	$0	$0	No	50k LOC private; AI features are Enterprise-only
cubic Starter	$0	$0	No	20 PR reviews/mo per GitHub org
CodeRabbit Free	$0	$0	No	Public repos only; 1 summary-only private review/hr
Greptile Starter	$0	$0	No	1 active developer, 50 credits/mo
Codacy Developer	$0 forever	$0	No	IDE tier, not a PR reviewer
Qodo	~$30/mo flat, up to 30 users	~$360	Credits at $0.012, no rollover	Credits-per-review not published
GitHub Copilot Pro	$10/user/mo, monthly only	$1,200	AI credits + Actions minutes	No annual billing since 1 Jun 2026
Sourcery Pro	$12 annual / $15 monthly	$1,440	No	Python-centric strength
Bito Team	$12 annual / $15 monthly	$1,440	$5 per 1K lines over 5K/seat/mo	Line allowance
Korbit Pro	$12 annual / $15 monthly	$1,440	No	Billed per Git author, not per seat
Codacy Team	$18 annual / $21 monthly	$2,160	No	30-developer cap
GitHub Copilot Business	$19/user/mo, monthly only	$2,280	AI credits + Actions minutes	Paid overage is ON by default for orgs
Gitar Core	$20 annual / $25 monthly	$2,400	No	50-user cap; no GitHub Enterprise Server
CodeRabbit Essentials	$24 annual / $30 monthly	$2,880	$0.25 per reviewed file overage	1 linked repository
CodeAnt Premium	$24/user/mo	$2,880	No	Price not rendered on a static fetch
DeepSource Team	$24/dev/mo yearly	$2,880	$8 per 10K processed LOC	AI review billed separately from the seat
Snyk Code Team	from $25/contributing dev/mo	$3,000	Credits	100 projects, 1,000 Code tests/mo
Greptile Pro	$30/seat/mo	$3,600	$1 per extra credit	Credits are per author and do not pool
cubic Team	$30/dev/mo yearly ($40 monthly)	$3,600	Over 40K lines/dev	SOC 2 Type I only
Macroscope Budget	$0.025/KB, $0.25 floor	usage only	Entirely	Every re-review is billed
Cursor Bugbot	~$1.00-1.50/review	$3,600 of Cursor seats first	Entirely	No standalone plan since 8 Jun 2026
Entelligence Startup	$750/mo flat	$9,000	$1/review over 300	Up to 15 engineers, 300 reviews/mo

Arithmetic, so you can check it: $12 per seat per month times 10 developers times 12 months is $1,440. $24 times 10 times 12 is $2,880. $30 times 10 times 12 is $3,600. No tricks, and that is the point - the tricks are all in the metering column.

Cheapest AI code review tools for startups

Direct answer: For a startup, self-hosted PR-Agent at $0 licence or Qodo at roughly $30/mo flat for up to 30 users are the two best answers. Greptile publishes a real startup discount: 50% off pre-Series-A under $2M revenue, plus a free month and Y Combinator terms. Verified 2026-10-18.

Startups have a different cost shape from established teams: headcount moves fast, so a flat team fee beats a per-seat price, and a tool that is free on public repos is free if you are building in the open.

The seven genuine $0 options, with what actually limits each one. This is the section most lists get wrong, because they list free tiers without listing the limit that makes them unusable.

Free option	Licence or tier	What you get	Why it stops being free
PR-Agent self-hosted	MIT, 23 Apr 2026	Full reviewer: /review, /describe, /improve. GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps, Gitea	Never, on licence. You pay inference and run it
Kodus self-hosted	AGPLv3, Sept 2026	Self-host at any team size, GHES and GitLab Self-Managed, in-network models via vLLM, Ollama, TGI, LiteLLM	Never, on licence. AGPL obligations if you modify and expose it
CodeRabbit Free	Free tier	Free reviews forever on public repositories	The moment a repo is private. Then 1 summary-only review/hr
Greptile Starter	Free tier	50 credits/mo, unlimited repositories	At the second developer. A seat is any dev who received a review
cubic Starter	Withdrawn - not on the live pricing page as of 2026-10-18	Previously 20 PR reviews/mo per org	n/a. The cap is org-wide, not per developer
SonarQube Cloud Free	Free tier	PR analysis included, 50k LOC private, no expiry, 30+ languages	At 50k LOC, or when you want the AI agents, which are Enterprise-only
Codacy Developer	Free forever	IDE plugin, SAST, SCA, secrets, 38 languages, no seat cap	It is not a PR reviewer. Different product shape

The SonarQube distinction is the one most comparisons get wrong, and getting it right matters if you are picking a free option. SonarQube Cloud free does include pull request analysis, up to 50k LOC on private projects, and it never expires. SonarQube Community Build does not - it is self-hosted and free, but it analyses the main branch only, covers 21 languages, and explicitly excludes C, C++, Swift, Dart, T-SQL, PL/SQL, taint analysis and secrets detection. If you are a C++ shop looking at “the free SonarQube”, it is a non-starter. See SonarQube pricing for the full tier boundary.

Published startup and OSS terms, verified 2026-10-18:

• Greptile: 50% off pre-Series-A with under $2M revenue, one month free, special pricing for Y Combinator companies. The only published startup programme in the set.
• CodeRabbit: free forever on public repos, backed by a stated $10M/12-month commitment keeping it free for roughly 150,000 open source projects.
• CodeAnt AI: “100% OFF FOR OPEN SOURCE” on its pricing page, arranged by email. 14-day trial with 100 PR reviews, no card.
• Korbit: Max tier free for all open source.
• Codacy and Sourcery: free for open source.
• Gitar: free for OSI-licensed public repos, 14-day trial.

One tool we are deliberately excluding: Gemini Code Assist’s free tier. Google’s docs describe a GitHub App install getting at least 100 PR reviews a day, which would be the most generous free offer in the market. But one source says it stopped serving requests on 18 June 2026 and another still advertises it, and we could not resolve that on 2026-10-18. Rather than guess at the best free deal in the market, we are leaving it out and telling you why.

Our longer treatment of the free end is at free AI code review tools 2026 and open source AI code review tools.

Under $15 per seat: the two-and-a-half real options

Direct answer: Three tools sit at $12 per seat per month billed annually: Sourcery Pro, Bito Team and Korbit Pro. All three are $15 monthly, a 20% annual discount. For 10 developers that is $1,440 a year. GitHub Copilot Pro at $10 includes code review and is cheaper still. Verified 2026-10-18.

Sourcery Pro: $12/seat/mo annual, $15 monthly. 14-day org-wide trial, card only on conversion. Free forever for open source. Team tier is $24 annual, $30 monthly. Sourcery’s history is Python refactoring, and that is still where its strength is concentrated - treat it as a strong narrow tool rather than a general reviewer. Details in Sourcery pricing.

Bito Team: $12/seat/mo annual, $15 monthly. Professional is $20 annual, $25 monthly. The detail that matters is the allowance: 5,000 lines per seat per month, then $5 per additional 1,000 lines. At first glance that sounds restrictive. Run it against real data and it is not. Our measurement of 2,896 merged pull requests, taken 2026-10-18, found a median of 63 changed lines per pull request. A 10-seat Bito plan carries 50,000 lines a month of allowance. At 100 pull requests a month and a 63-line median, you are consuming roughly 6,300 lines - about 13% of the allowance. Even at 500 pull requests a month you are near 31,500 lines, still inside it.

The caveat, and it is a real one: we could not verify whether Bito counts changed lines or processed lines. If “lines” means the whole file or the retrieved context rather than the diff, the arithmetic above is wrong by an order of magnitude. Bito’s pricing page says “5K lines/seat/month included, $5 per 1K after” without defining the unit. Ask them before you commit, and see how big should a pull request be for the distribution we used.

Korbit Pro: $12/seat/mo annual, $15 monthly. Max is $18 annual, $24 monthly. The structural difference: Korbit’s billable unit is the Git author, not the seat. For a team where contractors, bots or occasional contributors push commits, that is a materially different bill from a seat count, and it can go either way. Max is free for all open source.

GitHub Copilot Pro at $10/user/mo is the cheapest paid option that includes code review, and I had this wrong in an earlier version of this site’s coverage, so here is the primary source. GitHub’s documentation, verified at source 2026-10-18: “This is available on the Copilot Pro, Copilot Pro+, and Copilot Max plans, and with a Copilot Business or Copilot Enterprise license.” Only Copilot Free is excluded. So if your developers already carry Copilot Pro for completions, pull request review is included and your marginal cost for adding AI code review is $0.

Three things keep Copilot out of the top slot anyway. Annual billing was retired entirely on 1 June 2026 - monthly is the only option, so there is no annual discount and existing annual subscribers drop to Copilot Free at expiry unless they move to monthly. Included AI credits were cut on 1 Sept 2026, when the promotional June-to-August allowance ended: standard is now 1,900 credits for Business and 3,900 for Enterprise, drops of 36.7% and 44.3%. Credits are $0.01, pool enterprise-wide, expire monthly, and paid overage is on by default for organisations. And since 1 June 2026, code review on private repos consumes GitHub Actions minutes on top of credits. See GitHub Copilot pricing.

Qodo deserves its own note because it breaks the per-seat frame entirely. Roughly $30 a month flat for up to 30 users - about $360 a year whether you have 3 developers or 30. On base fee that is the cheapest paid plan in this market by a wide margin, and for a 10-person team it is a quarter the price of the $12 seat tier. Credits are $0.012 each, pooled across the team, in packs of 2,500 / 5,000 / 20,000, with no rollover. The gap we could not close: Qodo does not publish how many credits a pull request review consumes, so the flat fee is verifiable and the total is not. 14-day trial, unlimited reviews during it, no permanent free tier. See Qodo pricing.

Cheapest pull request review software for a team

Direct answer: For a 10-developer team the honest answer is $24 per developer per month - about $2,880 a year - because that is where CodeRabbit Essentials, CodeAnt Premium and DeepSource Team all sit. But the $24 seat is not the $24 price at DeepSource, where AI review is metered separately at $8 per 10K processed LOC. Verified 2026-10-18.

Three tools at the same headline number, three completely different bills.

	CodeRabbit Essentials	CodeAnt Premium	DeepSource Team
Seat price	$24 annual / $30 monthly	$24/user/mo	$24/dev/mo yearly
10-dev annual base	$2,880	$2,880	$2,880
AI review included in seat?	Yes	Yes, unlimited PR reviews	No - metered separately
Metered rate	$0.25 per reviewed file over cap	None published	$8 per 10K processed LOC (Standard), $15 (Advanced)
Included metered credit	None	None	$100/user/year, i.e. $1,000/yr for 10
Linked repositories	1	Not published	Not published
File cap per review	150 on Free and Essentials, 300 on Team+	Not published	Not published
Hourly review limit	5/hr, degrading to 1/hr under fair use	Not published	Not published
Trial	14 days, no card	14 days, 100 PR reviews, no card	Not published
Open source	Free forever on public repos	100% off, by email	Public repos analysed free

The DeepSource structure is the one to understand, because the seat price is not the price. You pay $24 per developer per month for the platform, and AI review is billed per use at $8 per 10,000 processed lines of code on Standard, $15 per 10,000 on Advanced, offset by a $100 annual AI credit per user. For 10 developers that is $1,000 a year of included AI credit, which at Standard covers 1.25 million processed lines. Whether that is generous depends entirely on what “processed LOC” means, and DeepSource’s pricing page does not define it. If it is the diff, 1.25M lines is enormous. If it is the files touched, or the indexed repository, it is not. We flagged this and could not resolve it on 2026-10-18.

What DeepSource genuinely has going for it at that price: it runs deterministic static analysis, 5,000+ rules across 30+ languages, before the AI agent sees the code. That ordering is unusual and it is a real noise-reduction mechanism rather than a marketing line. Note the ownership change too - Harness acquired DeepSource on 9 Sept 2026, so older comparisons describe it as an independent company. See DeepSource pricing.

The CodeRabbit constraint that most comparisons omit: Essentials covers exactly 1 linked repository. Team covers 5, Advanced 10, Enterprise 20. For almost any team with a service and a frontend, that single-repo cap forces the upgrade from $24 to $48 per developer per month - $2,880 to $5,760 a year for 10 developers - and it is a packaging decision, not a quality one. Also worth knowing: the plan names changed in Sept 2026 (Pro became Essentials, Pro Plus became Team, Advanced is new) at unchanged prices, so any page still saying “CodeRabbit Pro” is stale. Max files per review is 150 on Free and Essentials, 300 on Team and above, and the 5/8/10/12 hourly review limits degrade to 1 per hour under fair usage, with Essentials dropping at 30 and 60 reviews per rolling 7 days. Overage is $0.25 per reviewed file. See CodeRabbit pricing and is CodeRabbit free.

Just below the $24 band, two options are worth the comparison. Codacy Team at $18 per developer per month yearly, $21 monthly, capped at 30 developers, is $2,160 a year for 10 and bundles SAST, SCA and secrets alongside quality analysis. Gitar Core at $20 annual, $25 monthly, capped at 50 users, is $2,400. Gitar is a paid sponsor of this site, so the disclosure that belongs here: Gitar has no published third-party benchmark of its review quality, and that caveat stays attached wherever quality is discussed. Its operational model is distinctive - fix, commit, run CI, commit only on green, with automatic follow-up repair if its own fix breaks the build - and Sonar’s own material states that a green build is evidence, not proof. It does not support GitHub Enterprise Server, per Gitar’s own platform matrix verified 2026-10-18.

For the smaller-team version of this analysis, see AI code review for small teams.

Cheapest AI code review tool for an existing pull request workflow

Direct answer: If your team already pays for GitHub Copilot Pro, Business or Enterprise, pull request review is included and your marginal cost is $0. If not, self-hosted PR-Agent drops into an existing GitHub Actions workflow for the cost of inference plus roughly 2 minutes of runner time per review at $0.006/min. Verified 2026-10-18.

The cheapest tool for a workflow you already have is usually the one you are already paying for, and most teams have not checked.

Copilot first, because the entitlement surprises people. Code review is included on Pro ($10), Pro+ ($39), Max ($100), Business ($19) and Enterprise ($39). Only Copilot Free is excluded. If you hold any of those licences, enabling pull request review costs you nothing in licence terms. Two caveats: private-repo reviews consume Actions minutes as well as AI credits since 1 June 2026, and Copilot code review can be configured to submit an approving review that satisfies a required-approval rule, which is off by default and which you should leave off unless you have deliberately decided otherwise. Note also that Copilot’s 300-file / 20,000-line PR cap was removed on 27 Aug 2026, which invalidates any Copilot evaluation run before September 2026.

PR-Agent second, because it is the cheapest thing that is genuinely a reviewer. MIT since 23 April 2026, moved to The-PR-Agent/pr-agent under independent community governance with Qodo still a sponsor, 13.4k stars, v0.48.0 as of 2026-10-16. Four deployment shapes - CLI, Docker, GitHub Action, webhook server - across GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps and Gitea, with OpenAI, Claude, Gemini or local models via Ollama. The licence is $0 and the Action path means you are not standing up infrastructure.

Here is the CI arithmetic, which is the part you can actually compute. GitHub Actions on Linux 2-core is $0.006 per minute, with 2,000 to 3,000 included minutes a month depending on plan (2,000 Free, 3,000 Team, 3,000 Enterprise Cloud, 50,000 Enterprise Server). A PR-Agent review job that takes 2 minutes, run on 100 pull requests a month, is 200 minutes - comfortably inside the included allowance on any paid plan. At 500 pull requests a month it is 1,000 minutes, still inside. So on CI minutes, self-hosted PR-Agent is effectively free for a 10-developer team. Your entire bill is model tokens.

And that is the number nobody publishes. There is no per-review token figure for PR-Agent, Kodus, or any self-hosted reviewer. The only two public anchors in the whole market are Anthropic’s own $15-25 per review for its deliberately expensive multi-agent deep review of large pull requests, and Macroscope’s published $0.95 average review price, which is retail and includes margin. A single-pass diff review on a mid-tier model sits well below both, but we are not going to put a number on it that we cannot source. Budget it, run it for 30 days, and read the bill. More on the self-hosted options in self-hosted AI code review tools.

One CI gotcha that costs more than any licence. GitHub’s merge queue fires a merge_group event that is separate from pull_request and push. If your AI review job is a required status check triggered only on pull_request, the merge queue stalls permanently - per GitHub’s docs, the check “will not be triggered… The merge will fail as the required status check will not be reported.” Add merge_group to the trigger list. Also worth getting right at the same time: your pull request descriptions, since several tools read the description and linked issue as context. We cover what actually belongs in one in the pull request description guide.

Usage pricing: where cheap flips to expensive without warning

Per-seat pricing is predictable and usage pricing is not, and the market’s two cheapest-looking options are both usage-priced.

Macroscope has four modes, not two, and an 8x spread inside one vendor: Budget $0.025/KB, Balanced $0.05, Precise $0.06, Ultra $0.20. No seat fees at all. Floors are $0.25 in Budget and $0.50 at standard. Caps are $10 per review and $50 per pull request. New workspaces get a $100 credit. And every re-review is billed, which is the detail that breaks the model for teams that push frequently.

To model it we need kilobytes per review, which Macroscope does not publish directly. It does publish a $0.95 average review cost, and standard mode is $0.05/KB, which implies an average review of about 19 KB. That derivation is ours, not Macroscope’s - we are showing it so you can check it rather than asserting a number.

Cursor Bugbot is no longer a standalone product. The $40/seat plan was removed effective at each customer’s first renewal after 8 June 2026. It is now pure usage billing, listed from the Premium plan ($30/mo) upward and shown as a dash on Free and Plus. Per-review cost is roughly $1.00-1.50 per Cursor’s help docs. So the first line of your Bugbot bill is Cursor seats, and for a 10-developer team on Cursor Teams at $30 that is $3,600 a year before a single review runs. Whether every developer needs a seat for org-wide pull request review is not clearly documented, so we model both ends.

Here is the bill at 100 and 500 pull requests a month, against the $1,440 a year that 10 seats at $12 costs:

Option	100 PRs/mo	500 PRs/mo	Crossover vs $12-seat tier ($120/mo)
Sourcery / Bito / Korbit, 10 seats	$1,440/yr	$1,440/yr	n/a, flat
Macroscope Budget (~$0.48/review)	$48/mo = $576/yr	$240/mo = $2,880/yr	~250 reviews/mo
Macroscope Balanced ($0.95/review)	$95/mo = $1,140/yr	$475/mo = $5,700/yr	~126 reviews/mo
Macroscope Ultra (~$3.80/review)	$380/mo = $4,560/yr	$1,900/mo = $22,800/yr	~32 reviews/mo
Cursor Bugbot usage only, $1.00/review	$100/mo = $1,200/yr	$500/mo = $6,000/yr	~120 reviews/mo
Cursor Bugbot usage only, $1.50/review	$150/mo = $1,800/yr	$750/mo = $9,000/yr	~80 reviews/mo
Cursor Bugbot + 10 Cursor seats at $30	$4,800-5,400/yr	$9,600-12,600/yr	Already past it at 0 reviews
Greptile Pro, 10 seats, 50 credits each	$3,600/yr if inside credits	$3,600 + $1/extra credit	n/a
Entelligence Startup	$9,000/yr	$9,000 + $1/review over 300	n/a

The numbers that matter in that table are the crossover column. Macroscope in Budget mode is genuinely the cheapest real option at 100 pull requests a month - $576 a year for a 10-developer team with no seat fees at all. At 500 pull requests a month in Balanced mode it is $5,700, which is nearly four times the $12-seat tier and more than CodeRabbit Essentials. Nothing announces that transition to you. Usage pricing is cheapest at low volume and the most expensive thing on this page at high volume, and the switch happens somewhere between 100 and 300 reviews a month depending on mode.

And re-reviews double it. Macroscope bills each one. If your team averages three pushes per pull request and the tool re-reviews on each, your effective crossover drops to roughly a third of the figures above - Balanced mode crosses at around 42 pull requests a month rather than 126. Model your pushes, not your pull requests.

Greptile Pro has a related trap that is not usage pricing but behaves like it. A “seat” is any developer who received a review in that billing period, and credits are per author and do not pool. So a developer who received one review costs a full seat, and a prolific author cannot borrow credits from a quiet teammate. Apex depth costs 10 credits per review, so a team that defaults to Apex burns its 50 included credits in 5 reviews. See Greptile pricing.

Our month-by-month comparison of these structures is at AI code review monthly billing.

Where cheap costs you more

This is the section nobody writes, and it is the most useful one on the page. Five ways the cheap option ends up as the expensive one.

1. Unbounded usage spend. Usage pricing with no cap is the only structure on this page that can produce a bill you did not expect. Macroscope’s per-review ($10) and per-PR ($50) caps help, but there is no monthly ceiling, so 500 pull requests in Ultra mode is $1,900 a month from a product whose headline is “no seat fees”. Set an alert on spend, not on reviews.

2. The tier you bought for SSO you do not need. Enterprise tiers in this market bundle self-hosting, SSO/SAML, audit logs and a named contact. Teams routinely jump two tiers for one of those. CodeRabbit self-hosting requires 500+ seats per its docs, which is not a price problem but an eligibility one. And only three vendors in the market publish an enterprise rate card at all - Snyk, Gitar and Entelligence - so 12 of 15 enterprise tiers are quote-only. If you are buying Enterprise for one feature, get the feature priced separately before you accept the tier.

3. CodeRabbit Essentials covering 1 linked repository. Worth stating twice because it is the single most consequential constraint in the cheap-to-mid band. Any team with more than one repository is on a $48 plan, not a $24 one, and the comparison tables that list CodeRabbit at $24 against CodeAnt at $24 are not comparing the same thing.

4. Copilot private-repo reviews consuming Actions minutes. Since 1 June 2026, code review on private repositories consumes GitHub Actions minutes in addition to AI credits. GitHub publishes no per-review minute figure, which makes this cost unmodellable - we tried. You cannot forecast it; you can only measure it after the fact. Combine that with AI credits at $0.01, the 36.7% Business credit cut on 1 Sept 2026, monthly-expiring credits, and paid overage on by default for organisations, and the $19 Business seat has three separate meters attached to it. The $10 Pro seat has the same two.

5. Metered AI review hiding behind a seat price. DeepSource Team at $24 is a platform seat; AI review is $8 per 10K processed LOC on top, with $100 per user per year of credit. Snyk’s Enterprise is now a prepaid credit platform subscription where 1 credit equals $1 and Snyk Code is metered at 1.0 credit per active contributor per day - which is $30 a month per active contributor by a different name. Read the metering line before the seat line.

Two more worth a mention. Aikido prices flat rather than per seat - Basic $300/mo for 10 users, Pro $600, Advanced $600 plus 100 credits - but Deep PR Review consumes credits and is Advanced-and-above only, so the $300 entry plan does not include the thing you came for. And compliance gaps cost money later: cubic is SOC 2 Type I only, Panto’s SOC 2 audit is still underway, and Kodus’s SOC 2 badge has no documents behind it, all verified at source 2026-10-18. If procurement needs Type II, the cheap tool is not in the running and you will discover that after the pilot. “HIPAA certified” is not a real certification scheme; HIPAA requires a signed BAA, and only four vendors offer a real one - Anthropic, Cursor (Enterprise), Augment Code and CodeAnt AI.

Pull request review software deals

Direct answer: The reliable deal is annual billing, worth 20-25% across the market: Sourcery, Bito and Korbit go $15 to $12, Gitar $25 to $20, CodeRabbit $30 to $24, cubic takes 20% off. Greptile publishes a real 50% startup discount. GitHub Copilot removed annual billing entirely on 1 June 2026. Verified 2026-10-18.

Deal	Who offers it	What it is worth
Annual commitment	Sourcery, Bito, Korbit, Gitar, CodeRabbit, Codacy, cubic, DeepSource	20-25%. cubic is an explicit 20% ($40/$99/$200 monthly to $30/$79/$160 yearly)
Startup discount	Greptile	50% off pre-Series-A under $2M revenue, plus a free month and YC terms
Open source free	CodeRabbit, Codacy, CodeAnt, Sourcery, Korbit Max, Gitar, DeepSource	100%
Free trial, no card	CodeRabbit 14d, CodeAnt 14d + 100 reviews, Sourcery 14d org-wide, Bito 14d, cubic 7d, Qodo 14d, Gitar 14d, Greptile 14d Pro	A month of real evaluation if you stagger them
Usage credit on signup	Macroscope $100 per new workspace, DeepSource $100/user/yr, Semgrep 60 AI credits	$100 is roughly 105 Macroscope reviews at the published average
No discount available	GitHub Copilot	Annual billing retired 1 June 2026, monthly only

The trial stack is the real deal here and almost nobody uses it. Eight tools offer a 7-to-14-day trial without a card. Stagger four of them across a month, run them on the same repository, and count the comments your team actually acted on. That is the only false-positive measurement that will ever exist for your codebase, because no party without a commercial stake has published one for any shipping commercial AI reviewer, and every vendor benchmark in this market was won by the vendor that ran it. Greptile scored Greptile at 82%; Augment’s re-run on the same repositories scored it 45% - though note that is an F-score rather than a catch rate, and Augment also rewrote the answer key, stating “We expanded and corrected the golden comments by reviewing each PR manually.” The gap is partly methodology, not purely self-dealing. Either way: measure it yourself.

See AI code review tools with free trials for the full trial matrix.

How we verified this

Primary sources fetched 2026-10-18. Every price in the ranking table was checked against the vendor’s own pricing page on that date:

• coderabbit.ai/pricing - confirmed Essentials $24 annual / $30 monthly, Team $48/$60, Advanced $72, and linked repositories of 1 / 5 / 10 / 20. Confirmed verbatim: “free reviews forever for public repositories”, with private not included.
• sourcery.ai/pricing - confirmed Pro $12 annual / $15 monthly, Team $24/$30, Open Source free forever, “14 days of Team, with no card needed”.
• sonarsource.com - confirmed SonarQube Cloud free at 50k LoC for private projects with no expiry and no card.
• deepsource.com/pricing - confirmed Team $24/user/mo billed yearly, “Standard: $8/10K processed LOC”, “Advanced: $15/10K processed LOC”, and a $100 annual AI Review credit per user ($10/month).
• codacy.com/pricing - confirmed Developer free with no seat cap, Team $18 annual / $21 monthly up to 30 developers, Business custom.
• bito.ai/pricing - confirmed Team and Professional tiers, “5K lines/seat/month included, $5 per 1K after”, 14-day trial with no card.
• greptile.com/pricing - confirmed Starter free at 1 active developer and 50 credits/mo, Pro $30/seat/mo, and verbatim: “A seat is any developer who has gotten a review done by Greptile in that billing period.” Base review 1 credit, Plus 3, Apex 10.
• codeant.ai/pricing - confirmed “14-day free trial, no credit card required” and “100% OFF FOR OPEN SOURCE”.

Our own data. The 63-line median used in the Bito allowance model comes from our own measurement of 2,896 human-authored merged pull requests across 10 major public repositories, harvested from the GitHub GraphQL API on 2026-10-18, with 104 bot authors removed. Median 63 changed lines across 3 files, p75 205, p90 628, p99 4,584, 74.3% under 200 lines. Published in how big should a pull request be.

What we could not verify, stated plainly:

• Macroscope’s pricing page did not render prices in a static fetch on 2026-10-18 (client-side rendered). The four modes at $0.025 / $0.05 / $0.06 / $0.20 per KB, the $0.25 and $0.50 floors, the $10 and $50 caps, the $100 workspace credit and the $0.95 average review come from our existing verified pricing record rather than from that fetch. The ~19 KB average review size is our derivation from the published $0.95 at $0.05/KB, not a Macroscope figure.
• CodeAnt’s plan prices did not render in the same fetch. The $24/user/mo Premium figure comes from our verified record; the trial terms and open source offer are confirmed on the live page.
• cubic’s yearly toggle did not render, so the fetch returned $40/$99/$200 for both monthly and yearly. The 20%-off yearly figures ($30/$79/$160) and the free Starter tier at 20 PR reviews/mo per org come from our verified record, not that fetch.
• Bito’s monthly and annual labels rendered ambiguously in the fetch (it reported $12 monthly and $15 annual, which is backwards). We state $12 annual / $15 monthly, consistent with every other vendor in the set and with our record. Confirm at checkout.
• DeepSource does not define “processed LOC” on its pricing page. We flag the metering and decline to model it.
• Qodo does not publish credits consumed per pull request review. The ~$30/mo flat fee for up to 30 users is verifiable; the total cost is not.
• GitHub publishes no per-review Actions-minute figure for Copilot private-repo review. That cost is unmodellable from published data. We say so rather than estimating.
• No per-review token cost is published for any self-hosted reviewer, PR-Agent and Kodus included. The only public anchors are Anthropic’s own $15-25 per deep review and Macroscope’s $0.95 retail average.
• Gemini Code Assist’s free tier status is genuinely unresolved. One source says it stopped serving requests on 18 June 2026; another still advertises it. Excluded from every table rather than guessed at.
• Tabnine prices are unverifiable. It was acquired by Tricentis, announced 2026-07-30, and the pricing page now redirects to a contact form. Excluded.
• The “Snyk Ignite at $1,260/yr per contributing dev, unlimited projects” figure is third-party-sourced and is not on Snyk’s plans page. Not stated as fact here.
• No independent quality ranking exists. No party without a commercial stake has published a false-positive rate, precision figure or noise measurement for any shipping commercial AI code reviewer. SWE-PRBench (arXiv 2603.26130) and CR-Bench (arXiv 2603.11078) publish false-positive data for bare models in fixed harnesses, not for products you can buy. So this page ranks price, not quality, and says so.

Disclosures. Gitar is a paying sponsor of aicodereview.cc. It appears here on price alongside everything else, and the caveat that it has no published third-party benchmark is attached wherever its quality is discussed. Separately, where this cluster cites the c-CRAB benchmark (arXiv 2603.23448): five of six authors are academic, but Ridwan Shariffdeen lists SonarSource as his affiliation, and Sonar acquired Gitar in May 2026. SonarQube is not among the four tools c-CRAB evaluates and the paper carries its own disclaimer, which blunts the conflict - we disclose it because we call out vendor-funded benchmarks everywhere else.

Recommendations

Criteria: lowest real annual cost for 10 developers, no cap that forces an upgrade within the first quarter, and the tool must actually review a diff.

If your developers already have GitHub Copilot, stop here. Your marginal cost is $0. Code review is included on Pro, Pro+, Max, Business and Enterprise. Turn it on, leave the approval setting off, and spend the budget elsewhere. Only Copilot Free is excluded.

If you want the lowest real bill and will run infrastructure: self-hosted PR-Agent. MIT since 23 April 2026, four deployment shapes, five Git hosts, any model including local via Ollama. Licence $0, CI minutes effectively $0 inside the included Actions allowance, and your whole bill is inference. The cost is your time, and the thing to budget is a month of measuring tokens.

If you want the lowest real bill and will not run infrastructure: Qodo at roughly $360 a year. A flat team fee for up to 30 users is structurally the cheapest paid plan in the market for a 10-person team, at a quarter of the $12 seat tier. Go in knowing credits are unpriced per review and do not roll over, and measure during the 14-day trial.

If you review fewer than about 120 pull requests a month: Macroscope in Budget mode. No seat fees, roughly $0.48 a review on our derived 19 KB average, about $576 a year at 100 reviews. Set a spend alert, use the $100 new-workspace credit to calibrate, and recheck the moment your volume or your push frequency climbs, because every re-review is billed and the crossover is closer than it looks.

If you need one hosted tool for a multi-repo 10-developer team: Codacy Team at $18, not CodeRabbit Essentials at $24. $2,160 against $2,880, and Codacy does not cap you at one linked repository. CodeRabbit Essentials is the better reviewer for a single repository and the worse purchase for anything else, because the repo cap pushes you to $48 for packaging reasons rather than quality ones.

Do not buy on sticker price in the $24 band without reading the metering line. DeepSource at $24 is a seat, not a price - AI review is $8 per 10K processed LOC on top, and DeepSource will not tell you what a processed LOC is.

Whatever you pick, stack the no-card trials first. Eight tools offer 7 to 14 days without a card. Run four of them on the same repository for a month and count the comments your team acted on. That measurement does not exist in public for any commercial reviewer, and it is the only one that decides whether cheap was worth it.

Further reading

• The AI Code Review Price Book 2026
• What Does AI Code Review Cost?
• AI Code Review for Small Teams
• Free AI Code Review Tools 2026
• AI Code Review Monthly Billing
• Open Source AI Code Review Tools
• Self-Hosted AI Code Review Tools
• What Makes a Good Pull Request Description (6 Templates)