Harness Hub

The directory · side by side

Compare

Line up two to four entries and see where they differ. The link in your address bar shares this exact comparison.

Greptile vs Qodo. Rows marked Differs have different values.

Startup

Greptile

Remove

Startup

Qodo

Remove

TypeStartupStartup
Categories
In one lineAI code review agents with full-codebase context.Multi-agent code review and quality governance for AI-written code.
Stage & fundingDiffersSeries 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 linkedDiffers32
Events00
Pros
  • 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
  • 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 forTeams 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 forPer-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

Popular comparisons