What Does AI Code Review Cost? 10, 50 and 200 Developers

Direct answer

AI code review costs roughly $1,500 to $10,000 a year for 10 developers, $6,000 to $50,000 for 50, and $23,000 to $384,000 for 200, all at published list price on 2026-10-18. The spread inside each band is driven by billing model, not quality. A useful first-pass figure is headcount x $24 x 12, corrected downward by your PR-author ratio, which in most orgs is 60 to 70% of headcount. Verified 2026-10-18.

Every price below was re-verified against the vendor’s own pricing page on 2026-10-18. Four figures in this market changed in the last 90 days. The verification notes near the end list what we could not confirm.

This is the buyer-facing page: three named scenarios, worked end to end, with the arithmetic exposed so you can swap your own headcount in. For the exhaustive sourced reference with every tool normalised three ways, read the AI code review price book. For billing mechanics - monthly versus annual, overage, what a seat means - read AI code review with monthly billing. For the under-20-developer ROI arithmetic, read AI code review for small teams.

What does AI code review cost?

Direct answer: $12 to $160 per developer per month on annual billing, or $0.025 to $0.20 per KB of diff if you buy usage instead of seats. In annual totals at list price: a 10-developer team pays $576 to $9,480, a 50-developer team pays $5,700 to $47,400, and a 200-developer team pays $22,800 to $384,000. Verified 2026-10-18.

Here is the headline grid. Three stacks at three sizes, actual annual totals rather than ranges. The arithmetic for each cell is worked in the sections below.

	Cheap stack	Mainstream stack	Premium stack
10 developers (8 PR authors, 100 PRs/mo, 5 repos)	$576/yr - Macroscope Budget mode	$4,608/yr - CodeRabbit Team, 8 billable seats	$9,480/yr - cubic Pro
50 developers (36 PR authors, 500 PRs/mo, 40 repos)	$5,700/yr - Macroscope Balanced	$12,000/yr - Gitar Core, 50 seats	$47,400/yr - cubic Pro
200 developers (140 PR authors, 2,000 PRs/mo, 180 repos)	$22,800/yr - Macroscope Balanced	$80,640/yr - CodeRabbit Team, 140 billable seats	$384,000/yr - cubic Max

Three things to notice before the detail.

The cheap column is the same product at all three sizes. Usage pricing scales linearly with pull request volume and has no seat concept at all, which is why it stays cheapest in absolute terms across the whole range. What it does not give you is SSO, audit logs, a predictable monthly figure, or anything to show a security reviewer.

The mainstream column changes tool at each size, and the reason is never price. At 10 developers the binding constraint is CodeRabbit’s 1-repository limit on Essentials, which forces Team at $48. At 50 developers with 40 repositories the binding constraint is that CodeRabbit’s Enterprise tier caps at 20 linked repositories, so the mainstream answer becomes a tool with unlimited repositories. At 200 developers the binding constraint is SSO and audit logging, which is Enterprise-only.

The premium column is where unmodelled spend lives. cubic Max’s $160 seat includes 160,000 reviewed lines per developer per month. That allowance attaches to the seat and does not pool, so a team with uneven shipping patterns pays for 200 allowances and uses 60 of them.

How much does an AI code review tool cost for a team?

Direct answer: For a team, multiply your billable unit count by the seat price, not your headcount. A 10-developer team where 8 people open pull requests pays for 8 seats on CodeRabbit, 10 on Korbit, up to 10 on Greptile depending on who got reviewed, and nothing at all on Macroscope. At $24 per developer per month that difference is $576 a year on a $2,880 bill. Verified 2026-10-18.

The arithmetic is simple. Getting the inputs right is not. Here are the three scenarios worked end to end with every input stated.

Scenario 1: a 10-developer startup

Inputs. 10 engineers. 8 of them open pull requests in a typical month. 100 pull requests a month total, averaging 19 KB of diff. 5 active repositories. No compliance requirement, no SSO requirement, card payment, no procurement process.

Cheap stack: Macroscope in Budget mode.

100 PRs/mo x $0.48 per 19 KB review (Budget, $0.025/KB) = $48/mo
$48 x 12 = $576/yr
Effective cost: $4.80 per developer per month

Add $100 of free workspace credit on signup, which covers your first two months. There are no seats, no minimum and nothing to cancel. The caveats are real: every re-review bills separately, so a PR that goes three rounds is three charges, and the 10 KB floor means a 2-line fix costs the same $0.25 as a 10 KB change. If your team ships lots of tiny stacked diffs, model the floor premium.

Mainstream stack: CodeRabbit Team.

8 PR authors x $48/dev/mo (Team, annual) = $384/mo
$384 x 12 = $4,608/yr
Effective cost: $38.40 per developer per month across 10 engineers

Why Team and not Essentials at $24? Because Essentials links one repository and this team has five. That constraint, not the price, is what decides the tier. Had the team had a single monorepo, Essentials on 8 billable seats would be $2,304 a year and the right answer. CodeRabbit bills only developers who create pull requests, which is why the multiplier is 8 and not 10 - that seat definition saves this team $1,152 a year versus a vendor that bills every account. Detail in CodeRabbit pricing.

Premium stack: cubic Pro.

10 developers x $79/dev/mo (Pro, yearly) = $790/mo
$790 x 12 = $9,480/yr
Effective cost: $79 per developer per month
Included: 80,000 reviewed lines per developer per month

At 10 PRs per developer and a 19 KB average, each developer is generating roughly 4,750 reviewed lines a month against an 80,000-line allowance. You are buying 17x the capacity you will use. That is the premium column’s defining problem at small scale: the allowances are sized for enterprises and they attach to the seat.

The cheaper alternatives this team should price first. Qodo Pro Team at $30 a month flat for up to 30 users is $360 a year plus credits, and at 100 reviews a month the credits run about $167 a month, so call it $2,364 all in. Korbit Pro at $12 per user per month with unlimited reviews, repositories and users is $1,440 a year for all 10. Sourcery Pro at $12 is the same $1,440. Gitar Core at $20 is $2,400. Any of those beats the mainstream column.

Scenario 2: a 50-developer scale-up

Inputs. 50 engineers. 36 open pull requests in a typical month. 500 pull requests a month, 19 KB average. 40 repositories, mostly services. SOC 2 Type II in progress. Finance wants an invoice and net-30 terms.

Cheap stack: Macroscope Balanced mode.

500 PRs/mo x $0.95 per 19 KB review (Balanced, $0.05/KB) = $475/mo
$475 x 12 = $5,700/yr
Effective cost: $9.50 per developer per month

Budget mode would halve that to $2,880 a year. The reason to move up to Balanced at this size is that a 50-developer org has enough review volume that detection quality starts to matter more than the $2,820 difference.

Mainstream stack: Gitar Core.

50 users x $20/user/mo (Core, annual) = $1,000/mo
$1,000 x 12 = $12,000/yr
Effective cost: $20 per developer per month

Gitar Core is the mainstream answer specifically because of the 40-repository estate: it advertises unlimited public and private repositories and the Core tier covers up to 50 users, which this team exactly fills. Fifty-one engineers and you are in an enterprise quote. (Disclosure: Gitar sponsors this site. It is in this cell because the repository constraint puts it there, and it still has no published third-party benchmark, which I would weigh against it on quality grounds.)

Why CodeRabbit is not the mainstream answer at 40 repositories. CodeRabbit’s linked-repository caps are 1 on Essentials, 5 on Team, 10 on Advanced and 20 on Enterprise. A 40-repository estate exceeds every published tier, including Enterprise. That is a negotiation, not a purchase. If you forced it, Team on 36 billable seats is $20,736 a year and still only covers 5 repositories. The tools that advertise unlimited repositories at this size are Greptile ($30/seat, $18,000/yr for 50), Korbit ($12 Pro or $18 Max, so $7,200 or $10,800), Gitar and Macroscope.

Premium stack: cubic Pro.

50 developers x $79/dev/mo (Pro, yearly) = $3,950/mo
$3,950 x 12 = $47,400/yr
Effective cost: $79 per developer per month

Entelligence Scale is the other premium option and prices differently again: a flat $2,500 a month for 16 to 50 engineers with 1,000 reviews included and $1 per review after, so $30,000 a year for this team. At exactly 50 engineers that is $50 per developer per month. At 16 engineers the same band is $156 per developer per month, so the bands punish teams sitting just above a threshold. Worth pricing because at 500 reviews a month this team is well inside the 1,000-review allowance.

The invoice requirement changes things. Sourcery states plainly that invoice billing is an Enterprise-plan feature. Codacy takes cards on self-serve with wire transfer on annual plans only. CodeRabbit’s Enterprise tier is available through the AWS and GCP marketplaces, which is the fastest procurement route in this market if you already have committed cloud spend to draw down. If finance requires a PO and net-30, budget two to six weeks and start the trial in parallel.

Scenario 3: a 200-developer enterprise

Inputs. 200 engineers. 140 open pull requests in a typical month. 2,000 pull requests a month, 19 KB average. 180 repositories. SSO via Okta is mandatory, audit logs are mandatory, a signed DPA is mandatory, and security review wants SOC 2 Type II and a trust centre.

Cheap stack: Macroscope Balanced.

2,000 PRs/mo x $0.95 = $1,900/mo
$1,900 x 12 = $22,800/yr
Effective cost: $9.50 per developer per month

That is the cheapest credible number on this page at this size, and it is 17x cheaper than cubic Max for the same volume. It will also fail your security review as specified, because the mandatory SSO and audit-log requirements are not things a seatless usage product is built around. Price it anyway, because it is the benchmark every quote should be measured against.

Mainstream stack: CodeRabbit Team on billable seats only.

140 PR authors x $48/dev/mo (Team, annual) = $6,720/mo
$6,720 x 12 = $80,640/yr
Effective cost: $33.60 per developer per month across 200 engineers

At full headcount the same tier is $115,200. The $34,560 difference is produced entirely by reading CodeRabbit’s seat definition, which bills only developers who create pull requests. This is the single highest-value piece of pricing arithmetic in this article: pull your distinct PR-author list for the last 90 days before you accept a headcount-based quote from anyone.

Then the bad news. This configuration does not satisfy the inputs. SSO, audit logs and API access are CodeRabbit Enterprise-only, and the 180-repository estate exceeds Enterprise’s 20-repository cap. So the real mainstream answer at 200 developers is a CodeRabbit Enterprise quote with a negotiated repository allowance, and nobody outside the deal knows what that costs.

GitHub Copilot as the mainstream alternative.

200 seats x $19/user/mo (Business) = $3,800/mo = $45,600/yr
Included AI credits: 1,900 per user per month = $3,800/mo, pooled enterprise-wide
2,000 reviews/mo at $0.25-$5 of credits each (Balanced) = $500-$10,000/mo
Credit overage: $0 to $6,200/mo = $0 to $74,400/yr
GitHub Actions minutes on private repos: not published, not modellable
Total: $45,600/yr to $120,000/yr, plus an unknown

That range is the honest answer, and the unknown at the end is not laziness. GitHub’s documentation gives the AI credit estimate per review and then states explicitly that “these estimates do not include GitHub Actions minutes,” and GitHub publishes no figure for minutes consumed per review. Since 1 June 2026 Copilot code review on private repositories consumes Actions minutes in addition to credits. The mitigation is routing the review workflow to a self-hosted runner, which consumes no GitHub minutes. Detail in GitHub Copilot pricing.

Premium stack: cubic Max.

200 developers x $160/dev/mo (Max, yearly) = $32,000/mo
$32,000 x 12 = $384,000/yr
Effective cost: $160 per developer per month
Included: 160,000 reviewed lines per developer per month

At 2,000 PRs a month and a 19 KB average, the whole organisation generates roughly 950,000 reviewed lines a month against a 32,000,000-line entitlement. You would be buying 33x your usage. If cubic is the right tool for you, buy Team or Pro and negotiate, not Max.

AI code review software cost for 50 developers

Direct answer: $2,880 to $47,400 a year at list price on 2026-10-18. Macroscope Budget mode is $2,880, Sourcery Pro and Korbit Pro at $12 per seat are $7,200, Korbit Max is $10,800, Gitar Core is $12,000, Greptile Pro and cubic Team are $18,000, CodeRabbit Team on 36 PR authors is $20,736, Entelligence Scale is $30,000 flat, and cubic Pro is $47,400. Qodo and Codacy Team are unavailable: both cap at 30 users.

Fifty developers is the size where the caps start deciding for you. Here is every option that is actually purchasable at 50, with the annual total.

Option	Unit price	50-dev annual total	Status at 50 developers
Self-hosted PR-Agent or Kodus	$0 licence	$0 + tokens + ops	Available at any size
Macroscope Budget mode	$0.025/KB	$2,880	No seats, no caps
Macroscope Balanced	$0.05/KB	$5,700	No seats, no caps
Sourcery Pro	$12/dev/mo annual	$7,200	Available; review limits not published
Korbit Pro	$12/user/mo annual	$7,200	Available; unlimited reviews and repos
Bito Team	$12/seat/mo annual	$7,200 + line overage	Seat cap reported at 25; verify
Korbit Max	$18/user/mo annual	$10,800	Available
Gitar Core	$20/user/mo annual	$12,000	Available; 50-user cap, you are at it
Graphite Starter	$20/user/mo annual	$12,000	”Limited” AI reviews, unquantified
DeepSource Team	$24/user/mo	$14,400 + AI usage	AI review metered separately at $8/10K LOC
Greptile Pro	$30/seat/mo	$18,000	Available; credits per author, do not pool
cubic Team	$30/dev/mo yearly	$18,000	Available; 40K lines/dev
CodeRabbit Team	$48/dev/mo annual	$20,736 on 36 PR authors	5-repo cap
Gitar Pro	$40/user/mo annual	$24,000	50-user cap
Graphite Team	$40/user/mo annual	$24,000	Unlimited AI reviews
CodeRabbit Advanced	$72/dev/mo annual	$31,104 on 36 PR authors	10-repo cap
Entelligence Scale	$2,500/mo flat	$30,000	16-50 engineer band; 1,000 reviews
cubic Pro	$79/dev/mo yearly	$47,400	80K lines/dev
Qodo Pro Team	$30/mo flat	Not available	30-user cap
Codacy Team	$18/dev/mo annual	Not available	30-developer cap

The honest read: the 20x spread between $2,880 and $47,400 is not a quality ladder. It is a billing-model spread. Macroscope at $5,700 and cubic Pro at $47,400 are both buying you an AI reviewer that comments on your pull requests. What the extra $41,700 buys is a predictable flat monthly number, a reviewed-line entitlement you will not use, and a vendor relationship with a sales contact. Decide whether those are worth it before you decide between tools.

Swap your own numbers in. Seat price x billable units x 12. The two inputs people get wrong are billable units (use your PR-author list, not headcount, for CodeRabbit) and the tier (check the repository cap before the price).

AI code review software pricing per developer

Direct answer: Published per-developer annual rates on 2026-10-18: $12 Sourcery Pro, Bito Team, Korbit Pro; $18 Codacy Team, Korbit Max; $20 Graphite Starter, Gitar Core; $24 CodeRabbit Essentials, DeepSource Team, CodeAnt Premium, Sourcery Team; $30 Greptile Pro, cubic Team; $40 Gitar Pro, Graphite Team, Ito Pro; $48 CodeRabbit Team; $72 CodeRabbit Advanced; $79 cubic Pro; $160 cubic Max. Monthly billing is typically 20% higher.

Tool and tier	$/dev/mo annual	$/dev/mo monthly	10 devs/yr	50 devs/yr	200 devs/yr
Sourcery Pro	$12	$15	$1,440	$7,200	$28,800
Korbit Pro	$12	$15	$1,440	$7,200	Quote likely
Bito Team	$12	$15	$1,440	Seat cap reported at 25	n/a
Codacy Team	$18	$21	$2,160	30-dev cap	n/a
Korbit Max	$18	$24	$2,160	$10,800	Quote likely
Gitar Core	$20	$25	$2,400	$12,000	50-user cap
Graphite Starter	$20	$24	$2,400	$12,000	$48,000
CodeRabbit Essentials	$24	$30	$2,880 (1 repo)	$14,400 (1 repo)	$57,600 (1 repo)
DeepSource Team	$24	up to 20% more	$2,880 + usage	$14,400 + usage	$57,600 + usage
Greptile Pro	$30	$30	$3,600	$18,000	$72,000
cubic Team	$30	$40	$3,600	$18,000	$72,000
Gitar Pro	$40	$50	$4,800	$24,000	50-user cap
Ito Pro	$40	$40	$4,800	$24,000	Enterprise, 25+ engineers
CodeRabbit Team	$48	$60	$5,760	$28,800	$115,200
CodeRabbit Advanced	$72	not published	$8,640	$43,200	$172,800
cubic Pro	$79	$99	$9,480	$47,400	$189,600
cubic Max	$160	$200	$19,200	$96,000	$384,000
GitHub Copilot Business	$19	$19, monthly only	$2,280 + credits	$11,400 + credits	$45,600 + credits
GitHub Copilot Enterprise	$39	$39, monthly only	$4,680 + credits	$23,400 + credits	$93,600 + credits

Those columns multiply headcount by the seat price, which is the wrong calculation for most of these vendors and the reason this table should be read as an upper bound. The corrections:

• CodeRabbit bills PR authors only. Multiply by your distinct PR-author count, typically 60-70% of headcount.
• Greptile bills developers who received a review that period, and its 50 included credits are per author and do not pool. A quiet developer’s unused credits never subsidise a busy one.
• Korbit bills per Git author, which is decoupled from your invite list entirely.
• DeepSource bills every member and admin, so dormant accounts cost full price, and the AI review is metered separately at $8 per 10K processed lines on Standard or $15 on Advanced with a $100 annual credit per user.
• cubic attaches a reviewed-line allowance to each seat (40K / 80K / 160K on Team / Pro / Max) and those allowances do not pool either.
• Copilot has no annual option at all. GitHub retired annual billing on 1 June 2026, so the monthly column is the only column.

AI code review tool costs for enterprise teams

Direct answer: At 200 developers, expect $45,000 to $400,000 a year at list price before negotiation, and expect most of the market to be quote-only. CodeRabbit, Greptile, Qodo, Codacy, Sourcery, cubic, Graphite, DeepSource, Korbit, Gitar, Semgrep, Entelligence, Aikido and SonarQube all publish “Custom” for enterprise. Only GitHub Copilot Enterprise ($39/user/mo), Claude Enterprise ($20/seat/mo annual, 20-seat minimum) and Snyk’s credit rate card publish an enterprise number.

The enterprise reality has four parts, and only one of them is about price.

Part one: the tier you need is defined by a requirement, not a budget. SSO, audit logs and API access are CodeRabbit Enterprise-only. They are Enterprise-gated at Codacy, Qodo, Sourcery, Gitar, Graphite, DeepSource and Semgrep too. If your security review mandates SAML SSO and audit logging, the enterprise tier is not a choice.

Part two: self-hosting may not be available to you at all. CodeRabbit’s self-hosted deployment requires 500 or more seats per its documentation as of August 2026. A 200-developer organisation that needs on-premises deployment cannot buy CodeRabbit, regardless of budget. The options that do self-host at 200 seats: Gitar Enterprise (self-hosted code hosting plus custom LLM API keys), DeepSource Enterprise (self-hosted plus bring-your-own-key for AI review), Sourcery Enterprise, Semgrep Enterprise, Qodo (single-tenant SaaS or on-premises), GitLab Duo with self-hosted models (GA in GitLab 18.4), and self-hosted PR-Agent under MIT or Kodus under AGPLv3. Note that Semgrep’s Network Broker and Snyk Broker are WireGuard-style tunnels into the vendor’s cloud, not on-premises deployment - they look like self-hosting in a feature matrix and are not. More in AI code review for enterprise.

Part three: the repository cap can be the blocker. CodeRabbit Enterprise covers 20 linked repositories. An enterprise with 180 services needs that renegotiated. Greptile, Korbit, Gitar, Macroscope and Codacy Business advertise unlimited repositories.

Part four: there are regulated-team exclusions that no price list mentions. Anthropic’s Code Review, which went GA on 15 October 2026 to Claude Team and Enterprise with at least $10,000 in review credits (Anthropic’s own figure; press reports a $10,000-$50,000 range scaled by active Claude Code seats) for eligible Enterprise organisations, is unavailable to organisations running zero data retention, the HIPAA configuration, or customer-managed encryption keys. The exact configuration that makes Claude Code PHI-eligible disables Code Review. It does support GitHub Enterprise Server, which Copilot code review does not. And Codacy’s AI Reviewer is cloud-and-GitHub-only while GitHub Enterprise Server requires Codacy Self-hosted, so GHES customers structurally cannot get Codacy’s AI Reviewer.

AI code review software enterprise license costs

Direct answer: Only three vendors publish one. GitHub Copilot Enterprise is $39 per user per month with 3,900 included AI credits, monthly only. Claude Enterprise is $20 per seat per month billed annually with a 20-seat minimum, plus usage at API rates. Snyk Enterprise publishes a credit rate card where 1 credit equals $1 and Snyk Code meters at 1.0 credit per active contributor per day. Everyone else says Custom.

Vendor	Published enterprise price	200-developer annual at list	What it includes
GitHub Copilot Enterprise	$39/user/mo, monthly only	$93,600 + credit overage + Actions minutes	3,900 AI credits/user/mo, pooled enterprise-wide; no annual billing since 1 Jun 2026
Claude Code via Claude Enterprise	$20/seat/mo annual, 20-seat minimum	$48,000 + usage at API rates	Claude Code included; Code Review GA 15 Oct 2026; up to $50,000 review credits for eligible orgs
Snyk Enterprise	1 credit = $1; Code at 1.0 credit per active contributor per day	~$48,000-$72,000 depending on active days	Prepaid credit platform; IaC 0.33, Secrets 0.66, AI pentesting 4,000 credits per assessment
CodeRabbit Enterprise	Custom	Unknown. Team list is $115,200	SSO, audit logs, API, custom roles, 20 repos, 12 reviews/hr; self-host needs 500+ seats
Greptile Enterprise	Custom	Unknown. Pro list is $72,000	Self-hosting, SSO/SAML, GHES, custom invoicing, custom DPA
Qodo Enterprise	Custom	Unknown	SSO/SAML, audit logs, single-tenant SaaS or on-prem, dedicated CSM
Codacy Business	Custom	Unknown. Team list is $43,200	SSO/SAML, audit logs, GHES with data residency, DAST, unlimited private projects
DeepSource Enterprise	Custom	Unknown. Team list is $57,600 + usage	Self-hosted, BYOK for AI review, SSO, SLA
cubic Enterprise	Custom	Unknown. Max list is $384,000	Not published
Gitar Enterprise	Custom	Unknown. Pro list is $96,000 at 200	Self-hosted code hosting, custom LLM keys, SSO/SAML, audit logs, API
Entelligence Enterprise	Custom	Unknown. Scale is $30,000 at 50	Self-healing review, Agent Insights, Model Router, self-hosting
SonarQube Enterprise	Custom, over 50 developers	Unknown	Sonar Vortex, Remediation Agent, Hunter Agent; AI CodeFix designed to run without outbound internet

That table is the most useful thing on this page for a procurement team. Twelve of the fifteen rows say “Unknown,” and the three that do not are all platform vendors who price enterprise the same way they price everything else. Treat the list price of the tier below Enterprise as your anchor, because it is the only verifiable number you have, and assume the enterprise tier is quoted above it.

What gets custom-quoted, and why

Four things consistently move a deal to a quote, and knowing which one triggered yours tells you what you can push on.

1. A seat count above the self-serve cap. Qodo at 30 users, Codacy at 30 developers, Gitar at 50 users, Entelligence Scale at 50 engineers, Ito at 25 engineers. This is the easiest quote to negotiate, because the vendor’s own list price at the tier below gives you a defensible per-seat anchor.
2. A compliance feature. SSO, SAML, audit logs, a signed DPA, data residency. This is the hardest to negotiate on price, because the vendor knows you cannot buy the tier below.
3. A deployment model. Self-hosted, VPC, single-tenant, bring-your-own-key. Expect the largest premium here, and expect a seat minimum attached to it. CodeRabbit’s is 500.
4. Non-card payment. Invoice, purchase order, net-30. Sourcery states invoice billing is Enterprise-only. Most vendors do not publish a policy at all. If you need a PO, assume enterprise.

What to negotiate

In rough order of what actually moves.

Price protection for the term. This is the one I would not sign without. At least twelve material pricing changes landed in this market between April and October 2026: CodeRabbit retired two plans and renamed two tiers, GitHub killed annual billing and then cut included credits by 36% for Business and 44% for Enterprise on 1 September 2026, Cursor removed the standalone Bugbot seat, Entelligence replaced seats with bands. A 3-year total at list price means nothing without a fixed rate. Get it in writing.

The seat definition, in the contract. If the vendor’s public definition is “developers who create pull requests,” make the contract say that, and make it say how the count is measured and when. A definition that drifts from PR authors to provisioned accounts at renewal is the most common way these bills grow.

The repository allowance. If your estate is above the published cap for your tier, this is a line item, not a hard limit. Ask for it explicitly rather than discovering it after signature.

The overage rate and a hard spend cap. CodeRabbit lets admins cap monthly overage. Qodo lets you set a monthly spending cap. GitHub offers budget limits at enterprise, cost-centre and user level, and paid overage is on by default for organisations. Macroscope exposes per-review and per-PR caps plus a monthly budget. Configure all of them before the first review runs.

Marketplace purchase. CodeRabbit Enterprise is available through the AWS and GCP marketplaces. If you have committed cloud spend, buying there draws it down and skips the new-vendor process entirely. This is the single fastest procurement path in the category and almost nobody mentions it.

The startup and education programmes, if you qualify. Greptile publishes 50% off for pre-Series A companies under $2M revenue, plus one month free and special pricing for Y Combinator companies. CodeRabbit and Qodo both run 50% education discounts. CodeAnt says it discounts startups without publishing a rate. Get an end date in writing; these are programmes, not contract terms.

How we verified this

What we checked, and where. On 2026-10-18 we fetched the live pricing page for every tool quoted here directly from the vendor: CodeRabbit, Greptile, Sourcery, Korbit, Bito, Codacy, Graphite, Gitar via Sonar, DeepSource, cubic, Ito, Qodo, Entelligence, Macroscope’s pricing docs, Cursor, GitHub Copilot plans, Claude, Snyk and SonarQube Cloud. We also read GitHub’s own Copilot code review documentation for the AI credit estimates and the Actions-minutes behaviour. The full sourced table, with overage mechanics and a dated price-change log, is in the AI code review price book.

Model assumptions, stated so you can disagree with them. 10 pull requests per developer per month. One review per pull request. 19 KB average diff, which is Macroscope’s own published average review size. PR-author ratio of 70% to 80% of headcount in the three scenarios. Seat-priced tools on annual billing. Re-reviews excluded, which understates usage-priced tools for teams that force-push often.

What we could not verify.

• cubic’s yearly prices. The live page shows a “Yearly -20%” toggle but rendered $40 / $99 / $200 in both states for us. The widely published yearly figures are $30 / $79 / $160, which does not match a clean 20% reduction ($32 / $79.20 / $160). We used $30 / $79 / $160 and flag the discrepancy.
• CodeRabbit Advanced’s monthly price. Only the $72 annual rate is published. Third parties list $90. Unverified.
• CodeAnt Premium at source. Its pricing comparison table did not render for us in two attempts on 2026-10-18. $24 per user per month is widely reported as the annual rate, and CodeAnt’s AWS Marketplace listing shows $30 for a 1-month seat contract.
• GitHub Actions minutes consumed per Copilot review. GitHub states its credit estimates exclude Actions minutes and publishes no minute figure. This cost is not forecastable from public data.
• Copilot Pro, Pro+ and Max included AI credit allowances. The plans page showed base allowances of $15, $70 and $200. Business (1,900 credits) and Enterprise (3,900 credits) are well corroborated; the individual-tier figures are single-sourced.
• Snyk Team’s seat minimum and maximum. Third parties report a 5-developer minimum and a 10-licence maximum, which would make the real Team range $125 to $250 a month. Snyk’s own plans page shows only “starting at $25 / month”. Unconfirmed. See Snyk pricing.
• Greptile’s annual discount. Only the $30 monthly Pro rate is published; annual and multi-year are custom.
• Graphite’s and Sourcery’s review limits. Both gate “limited” or “higher” review limits by tier without publishing numbers, so you cannot model the ceiling before purchase.
• Claude Code Review’s per-review cost. The $15-25 figure circulating in comparisons is cubic’s estimate. Anthropic publishes no per-review price, and the up-to-$50,000 Enterprise review credits make the near-term effective price zero and the long-term price unknown.
• Every enterprise price except Copilot, Claude and Snyk. Twelve of fifteen enterprise tiers we checked are quote-only. Nothing in this article is a quote.
• Tabnine’s prices. Behind a Tricentis contact form since the acquisition announced 2026-07-30. We quote nothing.
• Volume discount rates. No vendor publishes an enterprise volume curve. Every enterprise figure here is list price and should be treated as an opening position.

One thing we found that contradicts most published comparisons. As of 2026-10-18, GitHub’s documentation states Copilot code review is “included with Copilot Pro, Copilot Pro+, and Copilot Max plans, and with a Copilot Business or Copilot Enterprise license.” Many comparisons, including earlier research of our own, say it starts at Pro+ ($39). It starts at Pro ($10). Copilot Free still does not include it.

And the thing this page deliberately does not claim. None of these prices is justified by an independent quality ranking, because no party without a commercial stake has published a false-positive rate for any shipping commercial AI code reviewer, and every benchmark of a buyable product was published by a vendor that wins it. For that argument read best AI code review tools.

Recommendations

Criteria: lowest verifiable annual cost that satisfies the actual constraints of each size band. Not review quality.

10 developers, no compliance requirement: Korbit Pro at $12 per user per month annual, so $1,440 a year for all 10, with unlimited reviews, unlimited repositories and unlimited users. Trial is 14 days of Korbit Max with no card. If you would rather not pay per seat at all, Qodo Pro Team at $30 a month flat is $360 plus credits, and Macroscope in Budget mode is about $576 a year with $100 of starting credit. Do not buy CodeRabbit Essentials unless you have exactly one repository.

50 developers, multi-repo, invoice required: price Korbit Max ($10,800), Gitar Core ($12,000, and note it caps at exactly 50 users) and Greptile Pro ($18,000) against each other, then ask all three what invoice billing costs. Macroscope Balanced at $5,700 is the benchmark every one of those quotes should be measured against. Do not price CodeRabbit for a 40-repository estate - its highest published tier covers 20 linked repositories.

200 developers with mandatory SSO and audit logs: you are buying an enterprise tier, so run the quote process against three vendors and anchor each on the published tier below Enterprise. CodeRabbit Team list at your PR-author count is the most defensible anchor ($80,640 at 140 authors). Copilot Enterprise at $39 per user is $93,600 and is one of only three published enterprise prices in the market, which makes it a useful stalking horse even if you do not want it. If you need on-premises deployment, remove CodeRabbit from the list: self-hosting requires 500+ seats.

If you are already paying for GitHub Copilot at any size: turn code review on before you buy anything else. As of 2026-10-18 it is included from Copilot Pro ($10) upward, not Pro+ as widely reported. Then put the review workflow on a self-hosted Actions runner, because the Actions-minutes line on private repositories is the one cost in this entire article that cannot be forecast from public data.

If your pull request volume is low or lumpy: buy usage, not seats. The crossover is roughly 30 reviews per developer per month. Below it, Macroscope at $0.025 to $0.05 per KB is cheaper than any seat price in the market. Above it, seats win because the marginal review is free.

What nobody should sign: a multi-year agreement at list price with no fixed rate, a quote priced on headcount when the vendor bills PR authors, or any usage-priced tool without a spend cap configured before the first review runs. Every bad finance conversation in this category traces back to one of those three.

Next: the AI code review price book for the full sourced reference and the dated price-change log, AI code review with monthly billing for the billing mechanics, AI code review for small teams for the ROI arithmetic under 20 developers, and the single-vendor pages: CodeRabbit pricing, GitHub Copilot pricing, Greptile pricing and Qodo pricing.