Best AI Code Review Tools in 2026: 6 Options Tested and Compared

AI-generated code is flooding pull requests. Tools like Claude Code, Cursor, and GitHub Copilot have boosted developer output by 25-35%, but that volume has to go somewhere - and that somewhere is your review queue. The result: human reviewers are drowning in diffs they didn't write, catching bugs in code they didn't design, and burning hours on work that increasingly feels like it should be automated too.

Enter AI code review tools. They sit in your PR workflow (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket), analyze diffs, and post comments - flagging bugs, security issues, style violations, and logic errors before a human ever looks at the code. The best ones understand your full codebase, not just the diff in isolation.

I tested six of the most popular options across real repositories to see which ones actually deliver. Here's what I found.

The Contenders

Tool	Starting Price	Free Tier	Platforms	Self-Host
CodeRabbit	$24/dev/mo	Yes (public repos + 14-day Pro trial)	GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps, Bitbucket	Enterprise only
Qodo (fka Codium)	$30/user/mo	Yes (30 PRs/mo)	GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket	Enterprise only
Greptile	$30/dev/mo	14-day trial	GitHub, GitLab	Enterprise only
DeepSource	$12/mo (Pro)	Yes (limited)	GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket	No
Sourcery	$12/seat/mo	Yes (public repos)	GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket	Enterprise only
GitHub Copilot	$19/user/mo (Business)	No (code review requires Business+)	GitHub only	No

Prices reflect the lowest paid tier with code review capabilities, billed annually where available. Enterprise pricing is custom for all tools.

CodeRabbit - The Market Leader

CodeRabbit is the most widely adopted AI code review tool, installed on over 2 million repositories with 13 million PRs reviewed. It's the most-installed AI app on both GitHub and GitLab marketplaces.

What it does well: CodeRabbit combines AST-level analysis, 40+ built-in linters and SAST scanners, and generative AI feedback into a single review pipeline. It posts structured comments on PRs with severity levels and one-click fixes. You can interact with the bot directly in PR comments - ask it to generate tests, draft docs, or open issues in Jira and Linear. It learns from your feedback over time, reducing false positives.

Where it falls short: In independent evaluations, CodeRabbit scored well on catching errors but poorly on depth and completeness. An AIMultiple 2026 assessment gave it 4/5 on correctness but just 1/5 on completeness - meaning it catches what it catches, but misses things that require deeper architectural understanding. It also lacks governance and compliance features that enterprise teams increasingly need.

Pricing: Free for public repos (with Pro-tier features for open source). The Pro plan runs $24/dev/month billed annually ($30 monthly), and you only pay for developers who actually create PRs. A 14-day free trial is available with no credit card.

Best for: Open-source projects and small-to-mid teams that want broad coverage with minimal setup.

Qodo - The Enterprise Contender

Qodo (formerly Codium, and built on the open-source PR-Agent) launched its 2.0 release in February 2026 with a multi-agent architecture and expanded context engine. It's the tool that takes code review most seriously as an engineering discipline.

What it does well: Qodo runs 15+ specialized review agents covering bug detection, test coverage, documentation, changelog generation, and more. Its context engine indexes your entire codebase, dependency graph, and PR history to provide reviews that understand cross-service impact. On the Qodo benchmark (which, yes, Qodo created - grain of salt), it achieved the highest F1 score of 60.1% among seven competing tools.

Where it falls short: At $30/user/month (currently discounted from $38), it's the most expensive option in this comparison after DeepSource's Team tier. The free tier caps at 30 PRs/month and 75 IDE credits, which is tight for even a solo developer on an active project.

Pricing: Free tier with 30 PRs/month. Teams plan at $30/user/month (discounted from $38, with 21% off for annual billing). Enterprise pricing is custom and includes air-gapped deployment.

Best for: Large engineering teams with complex, multi-service codebases who need configurable rulesets and compliance enforcement.

Greptile - The Context Maximalist

Greptile's pitch is simple: it indexes your entire repository and builds a dependency graph so reviews aren't limited to the diff in isolation. When it reviews a PR, it knows what's in the rest of your codebase - duplicate code, convention mismatches, and changes that could break other modules.

What it does well: Full-codebase context is Greptile's core differentiator. On its own benchmark, it reported an 82% bug catch rate - 41% higher than Cursor (58%), with CodeRabbit at 44%. It also claims teams merge PRs 4x faster on average. Beyond code review, Greptile can auto-generate context-aware commit messages, update documentation based on code changes, and serve as a knowledge base via its chat feature ($20/user/month addon).

Where it falls short: Every vendor benchmark should be taken with skepticism, and Greptile's is no exception. On the Propel benchmark (a third-party evaluation), Greptile scored an F-score of 45% - behind Propel itself (64%) and Cursor Bugbot (49%). The full-codebase indexing also means initial setup takes longer and compute costs are higher.

Pricing: $30/active developer/month for cloud, with a 14-day free trial. Open-source projects get it free. Startups get 50% off. Enterprise self-hosting is available at custom pricing.

Best for: Teams that want deep codebase-aware reviews and are willing to pay for the context advantage.

DeepSource - The Static Analysis Veteran

DeepSource has been in the code quality space longer than most AI-native competitors. It combines 5,000+ deterministic static analysis rules with an AI review agent, covering 20+ languages.

What it does well: DeepSource's strength is breadth. It supports Python, JavaScript, TypeScript, Go, Ruby, Java, Kotlin, Rust, C, C++, PHP, and many more. Its Autofix feature generates one-click patches for detected issues, and its secrets detection validates against 165+ providers to prevent credentials from reaching production. The deterministic rules catch issues that purely AI-based tools often miss.

Where it falls short: The free plan doesn't include automated analysis - you'd need to manually trigger reviews. The AI Review and Autofix feature uses a credit system ($120 annual credit per contributor, then pay-as-you-go at $8/100K input tokens), which can get expensive for large teams doing frequent reviews. At $35/user/month for the Team tier, it's the priciest option here.

Pricing: Free plan (limited, no automated analysis). Pro at $12/month. Team at $24/user/month. Free for open-source projects. 14-day free trial available.

Best for: Teams that want battle-tested static analysis combined with AI, especially polyglot codebases.

Sourcery - The Lightweight Pick

Sourcery started as a Python refactoring tool and has expanded into a full-featured code review platform. It's the most affordable paid option and one of the simplest to set up.

What it does well: Sourcery generates PR summaries with diagrams, performs line-by-line reviews, and enforces custom review rules. It supports 30+ languages and integrates with VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket. The Team tier ($24/seat/month) adds repository analytics, daily security scans for 200+ repos, and bring-your-own-LLM support. It also includes production issue monitoring via Sentry integration, which is unique in this space.

Where it falls short: Sourcery's reviews tend toward style and refactoring suggestions rather than deep bug detection. If you need an AI that catches architectural issues or cross-module regressions, you'll want something with full-codebase context like Greptile or Qodo.

Pricing: Free for open-source repos with Pro features. Pro at $12/seat/month. Team at $24/seat/month. Enterprise pricing is custom.

Best for: Small teams and individual developers who want affordable, low-noise code review with IDE integration.

GitHub Copilot Code Review - The Incumbent

GitHub's own AI code review feature shipped as part of Copilot Business and Enterprise plans. If your team is already paying for Copilot, you get code review included - sort of.

What it does well: Zero setup friction if you're already on GitHub with Copilot. You can enable it org-wide, and it works on all PRs, including from users without Copilot licenses. It's deeply integrated into the GitHub PR UI with inline suggestions and a familiar comment style.

Where it falls short: Each review consumes one "premium request" from your monthly quota. Once you exceed your allocation, additional requests cost $0.04 each - which adds up fast on teams with high PR volume. It only works on GitHub (no GitLab or Bitbucket support). And it's less specialized than dedicated code review tools; it's a feature within a broader AI coding assistant, not a purpose-built review engine.

Pricing: Requires Copilot Business ($19/user/month) or Enterprise ($39/user/month). Code review uses premium requests from your plan's monthly allocation, with $0.04/request overages.

Best for: Teams already on GitHub Copilot Business/Enterprise who want basic AI review without adding another tool.

Benchmark Reality Check

Every vendor in this space publishes benchmarks, and predictably, every vendor wins their own. Here's how the numbers look across three different evaluations:

Benchmark	Top Scorer	Runner-Up	CodeRabbit	Notes
Propel Benchmark	Propel (64% F-score)	Cursor Bugbot (49%)	Not tested	Third-party evaluation
Greptile Benchmark	Greptile (82% catch rate)	Cursor (58%)	44%	Vendor-run
Qodo Benchmark	Qodo (60.1% F1)	Varies by metric	Tested	Vendor-run

The takeaway: accuracy numbers in isolation are nearly meaningless. What matters is how well a tool performs on your codebase, with your patterns, catching the kinds of bugs your team actually introduces. Every tool offers a free trial - use it on real PRs before committing.

Pricing Comparison

Tool	Free Tier	Cheapest Paid	Mid-Tier	Enterprise
CodeRabbit	Public repos	$24/dev/mo (Pro)	-	Custom
Qodo	30 PRs/mo	$30/user/mo (Teams)	-	Custom
Greptile	14-day trial	$30/dev/mo (Cloud)	-	Custom
DeepSource	Limited	$12/mo (Pro)	$24/user/mo (Team)	Custom
Sourcery	Public repos	$12/seat/mo (Pro)	$24/seat/mo (Team)	Custom
Copilot Review	None	$19/user/mo (Business)	$39/user/mo (Enterprise)	-

For a team of 10 developers, monthly costs range from $120 (DeepSource Pro or Sourcery Pro) to $390 (GitHub Copilot Enterprise). Most teams will land in the $240-$300/month range.

My Recommendations

Best overall: CodeRabbit. The combination of broad language support, 40+ built-in analyzers, interactive PR bot, and reasonable pricing makes it the safest default choice. The learning-from-feedback loop is genuinely useful and improves review quality over time.

Best for enterprises: Qodo. The multi-agent architecture, configurable compliance rulesets, and air-gapped deployment options put it ahead for teams with strict governance requirements. The February 2026 Qodo 2.0 release significantly improved its context engine.

Best for deep codebase context: Greptile. If your biggest code review pain point is reviewers (human or AI) missing cross-module implications, Greptile's full-repo indexing is worth the premium.

Best budget pick: Sourcery at $12/seat/month. It won't catch everything, but for small teams that need a lightweight safety net with IDE integration, it's hard to beat on value.

Best if you're already on Copilot: GitHub Copilot code review. Don't add another tool if Copilot's review quality meets your bar. Just watch your premium request usage.

Best open-source option: Qodo's PR-Agent. It's self-hostable, free (you pay only for LLM API costs and compute), and gives you most of Qodo's core review capabilities without the subscription.

The AI code review space is moving fast. Tools that were basic comment bots a year ago now index full codebases and run multi-agent pipelines. If you haven't evaluated these tools recently, the category has matured significantly - and with AI-generated code only increasing, automated review isn't optional anymore.

Sources: