| Type | Startup | Startup | Startup |
|---|
| Categories | | | |
|---|
| In one line | AI code review and change governance for agentic development. | AI code review agents with full-codebase context. | Multi-agent code review and quality governance for AI-written code. |
|---|
| Stage & fundingDiffers | Series B · $60M Series B led by Scale Venture Partners at $550M valuation (Sep 2025) | Series B · $50M Series B led by Menlo Ventures at $750M valuation (Oct 2026) | Series B · $70M Series B led by Qumra Capital (Mar 2026); $120M total |
|---|
| GitHub stars | — | — | — |
|---|
| License | — | — | — |
|---|
| Language | — | — | — |
|---|
| Last push | — | — | — |
|---|
| Works with | — | — | — |
|---|
| Built on | — | — | — |
|---|
| Built on it | — | — | — |
|---|
| Similar toDiffers | | | |
|---|
| People linkedDiffers | 1 | 3 | 2 |
|---|
| Events | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|---|
| Pros | - +User reportsWidely adopted; open-source maintainers credit it as a daily reviewer and a project sponsor.[1]
- +Independent testOften benchmarked as lower-noise than rivals, with about 2 false positives against Greptile's 11 in one 50-PR comparison.[1]
- +DocsHas expanded beyond PR review into security deep scans and enforceable merge gates.[1]
| - +User reportsIndexes the full codebase for review context and is often rated high-recall; one benchmark put its bug catch rate at 82% against CodeRabbit's 44%.[1]
- +User reportsPractitioners describe its reviews as close to a static-analysis pass without much false-positive noise.[1][2]
- +DocsPro has no seat fees: prepaid credits are shared across unlimited developers and agents, and OSS projects and early startups get free credits.[1]
- +DocsEnterprise supports self-hosting and many git hosts, including GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab Self-Managed, Bitbucket Data Center, Gitea and Perforce.[1]
| - +MetadataIts open-source PR-Agent reviewer (MIT, about 13.7K stars) can be self-hosted with your own LLM keys and supports GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps and Gitea.[1][2]
- +DocsQodo 2.0 uses a multi-agent review architecture with separate expert agents for distinct review responsibilities.[1]
- +DocsThe hosted product works across GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket and Azure DevOps, and offers free access to qualifying open-source projects.[1][2]
|
|---|
| Cons | - −Independent testIn 2025 Kudelski Security turned one malicious PR into RCE on CodeRabbit's runners, leaking its GitHub App key and giving write access to about 1M repositories (since patched).[1][2]
- −DocsPer-seat billing covers any developer who opens a PR in an enabled repo (Pro around $24/user/month annually), and some users object to per-user gates.[1][2]
- −User reportsTeams report too much noise, especially on large PRs, and some replaced it with in-house Claude or Codex reviewers.[1][2]
- −User reportsBenchmarks show it catching fewer bugs than higher-recall tools; one put it at 44% against Greptile's 82%.[1]
| - −DocsPer-review billing ($1 base, $3 Plus, $10 Apex) makes cost scale with PR volume, and the 2026 pricing switch drew 'predatory' criticism.[1][2]
- −User reportsOpen-source contributors were reportedly billed for usage after the pricing change.[1]
- −Independent testFalse-positive rates are disputed; one 50-PR comparison found 11 against CodeRabbit's 2.[1][2]
- −User reportsSome teams evaluating Greptile and its rivals concluded a webhook-triggered in-house agent would be cheaper.[1]
| - −User reportsSeveral teams say Qodo and CodeRabbit produce so much noise that they replaced them with thin in-house wrappers over Claude or Codex.[1][2]
- −MetadataPR-Agent's README calls it a community-maintained legacy project distinct from Qodo's main review product, so the open-source path lags the SaaS.[1]
- −Independent testIn a community benchmark PR-Agent found only 2 of 8 seeded issues, and it did not support the newest model.[1]
- −Independent testHosted pricing is credit-metered, and third-party listings disagree on seat prices and whether a free tier exists.[1][2]
- −User reportsQodo's own code-review benchmark was questioned on HN for treating merged PRs as ground truth.[1]
|
|---|
| Best for | Teams that want low-friction AI PR review across many repos with a free tier for open source. | Teams that value catching more bugs over minimal noise and want per-use billing without seats. | Teams that want multi-host AI PR review with an open-source, self-hostable fallback. |
|---|
| Watch out for | GitHub App permissions after the 2025 RCE, and per-seat costs as AI-generated PR volume grows. | Per-review costs at high PR volume, especially with agent-generated PRs. | Review noise, and the gap between the community PR-Agent and the paid Qodo platform. |
|---|
| Links | | | |
|---|