A developer's guide to navigating the crowded market of AI code review assistants in 2026.
The "Review Bot" Explosion
2025 is the year every engineering team tried to automate code review. If you opened a pull request this year, chances are an AI left a comment on it. Some of those comments caught real bugs. Many did not.
The problem isn't that AI code review doesn't work. It's that the market is flooded with tools that look similar on the surface but solve fundamentally different problems. One tool might catch off-by-one errors in your IDE before you even push. Another scans your entire repository history to understand cross-file dependencies. A third lives in your GitHub comments, leaving feedback that ranges from brilliant to pedantic.
For the average developer or tech lead, it's hard to tell the difference between a wrapper around an LLM and an actual platform. This article cuts through that noise.
I'll compare five tools—Graphite, GitHub's native review, CodeRabbit, Greptile, and BugBot—using three criteria:
- Depth: Does it understand your whole codebase, or just the diff?
- Workflow: Does it change how you review, or just what you read?
- Noise: Does it help you ship faster, or spam your PR timeline?
Let's start by categorizing these tools by what they actually do.
Category 1: The "Workflow Platform"
Tool: Graphite Agent
Graphite is an AI-augmented code review and pull request workflow platform designed to help teams ship higher-quality code faster by rethinking how reviews and merges work. It integrates AI feedback directly into pull requests, supports stacked pull request workflows, and provides automated merge orchestration.
When you open a pull request with Graphite, the Graphite Agent provides AI-driven feedback directly in the PR page. It focuses on delivering high-signal insights rather than large volumes of superficial comments. The platform is built to help teams catch substantive bugs and issues early in the review cycle.
A key workflow innovation is stacked pull requests. With the Graphite CLI and tooling, developers can create a series of dependent PRs—each building on the last—so you can continue working on PR #3 while PR #1 and #2 are still under review. When an earlier PR merges, subsequent stacked changes are automatically rebased, helping reduce merge conflicts and keeping development unblocked.
Graphite also includes a stack-aware merge queue. Instead of merging PRs sequentially and running CI for each one in isolation, the merge queue can batch and test multiple PRs in parallel once they’re ready, speeding up the merge process and reducing wait times.
In addition to AI review and stacking workflows, Graphite offers a modern PR review interface with unified inboxes, GitHub integrations, a CLI, and editor extensions (e.g., VS Code). These features aim to streamline the development and review experience and reduce context switching.
Best for: Teams that find traditional GitHub review workflows slow or fragmented, and that would benefit from structured, smaller changesets, automated rebasing, and integrated AI feedback throughout the pull request lifecycle.
Pricing:
- Free (Hobby): Essentials, including CLI for stacked PRs, VS Code extension, and limited access to Graphite Agent and AI reviews.
- Starter: $20/user/month (billed annually), includes support for all GitHub organization repos and team insights.
- Team: $40/user/month (billed annually), adds unlimited Graphite Agent access, unlimited AI reviews, review customizations, automations, and merge queue.
- Enterprise: Custom pricing with advanced controls, security features, and support.
Category 2: The "Native Giant"
Tool: GitHub
GitHub’s native code review workflow is the baseline most teams start from. It is reliable, familiar, and requires no additional tooling beyond what teams are already using for source control and pull requests.
GitHub has added AI-assisted review features through Copilot (including Copilot for Business and Copilot Enterprise). These capabilities can summarize pull requests, explain changes, and suggest improvements directly in comments. In practice, the quality of these suggestions varies: some feedback is genuinely helpful, while other comments are generic or low value. Importantly, Copilot acts as an assistive layer rather than a fully autonomous review agent.
A core limitation is architectural. GitHub’s pull request model is fundamentally linear: one branch, one PR, one review lifecycle. There is no native support for stacked or dependent pull requests, which makes it harder to work on large changes incrementally without introducing workflow friction.
For static analysis and security scanning, GitHub offers CodeQL. Public repositories get CodeQL scanning by default. For private repositories, full CodeQL integration—security alerts, dashboards, and UI support—requires GitHub Advanced Security, which introduces additional cost and setup. CodeQL analysis is deep and reliable, but it prioritizes correctness over speed and is not optimized for fast, conversational PR feedback like AI-first reviewers.
Best for: Teams that value stability and minimal workflow disruption, and that prefer to stay within the existing GitHub ecosystem. If adopting new tools or changing review workflows is a hard sell, GitHub’s native features are often “good enough” for baseline review automation.
Notable limitation: Merge queue availability is restricted to higher-tier GitHub plans and is not universally accessible. Many teams still merge PRs sequentially and run CI per-PR rather than benefiting from batch testing.
Category 3: The "Comment Bots"
Tool: CodeRabbit
CodeRabbit is a feature-rich AI code reviewer that operates entirely within pull request comments. It combines large language models with a broad set of linters and security scanners to generate comprehensive feedback on code changes. In addition to identifying issues, it can generate PR summaries, create sequence diagrams, suggest fixes, and propose test cases.
The breadth of analysis is both its main strength and its primary trade-off. CodeRabbit surfaces a wide range of findings, but this often includes stylistic feedback and minor suggestions alongside substantive issues. As a result, teams frequently invest time in tuning configuration and rules to reduce noise and focus the output on what matters most for their codebase.
CodeRabbit integrates with major source control platforms, including GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, and Azure DevOps. It also provides a VS Code extension that enables pre-PR review, allowing developers to catch issues before opening a pull request. This broad platform support makes it suitable for organizations operating across multiple repositories or hosting providers.
Best for: Open source maintainers or teams that want extensive automated feedback directly in their existing PR workflow, without introducing a new review interface. Its multi-platform support is particularly valuable for organizations that are not GitHub-only.
Pricing: Offers a free tier with basic features such as PR summarization. Paid plans are approximately $24–$30 per user per month (Pro), depending on billing, and unlock advanced analysis and customization options.
Category 4: The "Deep Context" Engine
Tool: Greptile
Greptile takes a fundamentally different approach. Instead of analyzing just the PR diff, it builds a full graph of your codebase—understanding how functions connect, where code is used, and how similar patterns have evolved over time.
This deep context means Greptile can catch issues that span multiple files or reference historical changes. It's like having a reviewer who has memorized your entire repository. The trade-off is complexity: Greptile requires more setup and resources than a simple diff-based tool.
Greptile emphasizes enterprise features: self-hosted deployment, custom AI models, SOC 2 compliance, and support for both GitHub and GitLab. You can run it on-premises if your security team requires it.
Best for: Large codebases where understanding cross-module dependencies is critical. If you're working on a system with millions of lines of code and complex architectural patterns, Greptile's full-repo analysis catches issues that simpler tools miss.
Pricing: ~$30/user/month (cloud), enterprise negotiation for on-prem. 100% off for open-source and 50% off for startups.
Category 5: The "Pre-Merge" Hunter
Tool: BugBot (by Cursor)
Bugbot is a narrowly focused AI code review tool designed to identify logic bugs and security issues with a low false-positive rate. Rather than acting as a full code review or workflow platform, it concentrates on surfacing concrete, actionable problems in code changes.
Bugbot primarily operates on GitHub pull requests. When a PR is opened, it automatically reviews the diff and leaves comments highlighting potential bugs, edge cases, or security concerns. For users of the Cursor IDE, flagged issues can be opened directly in the editor, where suggested fixes can be applied or modified before committing updates.
The tool is optimized for depth over breadth. It intentionally avoids stylistic feedback and general code quality suggestions, focusing instead on issues that are likely to cause incorrect behavior or security risk. Bugbot also supports custom review rules, allowing teams to encode project-specific constraints and conventions.
The primary limitation is scope. Bugbot does not aim to replace a full code review platform: it does not generate PR summaries, manage approvals, or integrate with project management workflows. Its role is confined to automated detection of substantive bugs within pull requests.
Best for: Individual contributors or teams who want automated, high-signal bug detection during PR review—especially those already using Cursor. It can be particularly useful in environments where logic or security defects carry a high operational cost.
Pricing: Bugbot offers a limited free tier for Cursor Teams and Individual plan users. Paid plans are approximately $40 per user per month, depending on usage limits and team features, and are available as add-ons to Cursor plans.
Comparison Matrix
| Feature | Graphite | GitHub | CodeRabbit | Greptile | BugBot |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Installation | GitHub App + CLI | Native | GitHub App | GitHub App + API | GitHub App |
| Primary Focus | Workflow + AI | Manual Review | PR Comments | Deep Context | PR Comments |
| Analysis Scope | PR diff + context | PR diff | PR diff + linters | Full repo graph | Current PR + existing PR comments |
| Noise Level | Very Low (~5%) | Varies | Medium-High | Low | Very Low |
| Stacked PRs | ✅ Native | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| Merge Queue | ✅ | Enterprise only | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| Pricing | $20-40/user | Included + Copilot | $12-30/user | ~$30/user | Limited usage included with Cursor |
Which Tool Fits Your Stack?
There's no universal winner. The right choice depends on where your team is blocked.
If your bottleneck is the review process itself—PRs sit too long, developers get blocked, context-switching kills momentum—Graphite's workflow improvements matter more than any AI feature. The stacked PRs and merge queue can cut review time from days to hours, even before the AI comments help.
If you're fully invested in GitHub and Microsoft tools, the native features are adequate. You won't get workflow improvements, but you also won't need to onboard a new platform.
If you need cross-platform support or want comprehensive coverage including linters and security scanners, CodeRabbit delivers. Be prepared to tune its configuration to reduce noise.
If you're working on a massive legacy codebase where understanding historical context is critical, Greptile's full-repo analysis is worth the complexity.
If you're already using Cursor IDE and want to catch bugs before they are merged, BugBot is the most focused solution.
The real question isn't "which AI reviewer is best?" It's "what's actually slowing down my team's shipping velocity?" Answer that first, then pick the tool that addresses it.
What are you running in production? Are you trusting AI to auto-approve yet, or strictly using it for summaries? I'm curious what everyone else is seeing. Drop a comment below.
Top comments (0)