Pick by four things your team knows: how it wants to pay, where its code lives, whether the reviewer must run inside your network, and how many reviews it runs a month. CodeRabbit charges per developer who opens pull requests, $24 a month on Essentials billed annually; Qodo charges $30 a month for a pool of 2,500 credits shared by the team, which Qodo estimates at ~18 reviews. Both list GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket and Azure DevOps; Qodo adds Gerrit, which its homepage and pricing page put on Enterprise while its docs list it for every deployment model, the multi-tenant cloud included. Both self-host on Enterprise: CodeRabbit from 500 user seats, Qodo with no seat minimum I could find. At Qodo's $1.67 a review ($30 over its own ~18), the two bills meet at about 14 reviews per developer a month against CodeRabbit's $24.
Every fact below comes from each tool's own pages as I read them on 14 October 2026, and neither Qodo nor CodeRabbit saw this text before publication.
Qodo and CodeRabbit side by side
Each cell is from the vendor's own pages, read on 14 October 2026; links are at the end.
| Qodo | CodeRabbit | |
|---|---|---|
| Code hosts listed | "GitHub (cloud and Enterprise Server), GitLab (cloud and self-managed), Bitbucket (Cloud and Data Center), Azure DevOps. Gerrit on Enterprise." on its homepage, and "Gerrit support" is "Not included" on Pro Team in its pricing table; its docs mark Gerrit for Multi-tenant, Single-tenant, On-prem and Air-gapped, and its changelog says Qodo "now fully supports Gerrit across multi-tenant, single-tenant, and on-premises deployments" | GitHub, GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab.com and self-managed GitLab, Bitbucket Cloud and Data Center, Azure DevOps; a Reverse Tunnel, set up through CodeRabbit sales or support, for a GitHub Enterprise Server or self-managed GitLab that cannot accept inbound network access |
| Not found on these pages on 14 October 2026 | Gitea, Perforce (homepage, pricing, deployment table, install page, docs index) | Gerrit, Gitea, Perforce (platforms page, docs index) |
| When it reviews | automatically when a pull request is opened, reopened or marked ready for review; "Review every push" is an option; /agentic_review on demand; a "Manual only" setting |
automatically when a pull request is opened against the main branch, then an incremental review on each push, paused by default after five reviewed commits; @coderabbitai review for new changes, @coderabbitai full review for the whole pull request |
| What you pay for | one credit pool per workspace: Pro Team $30 a month for 2,500 credits, packs of 5,000 credits for $60 and 20,000 for $240, "$.012/credit, pooled across the team"; overage at the same per-credit rate up to a monthly cap you set; credits expire each month; Pro Team is billed monthly | developers who create pull requests: Essentials $24 per developer per month billed annually or $30 monthly, Team $48 or $60; 5 PR reviews per developer per hour on Essentials, 8, 10 and 12 on the higher plans; optional usage-based reviews at $0.25 per reviewed file, with a monthly spending cap |
| Free entry | a 14-day trial with unlimited reviews and no credit card; "We don't offer a permanent free tier."; qualified open-source projects can apply to the Qodo for Open Source program | a 14-day trial with no credit card, Advanced by default for new organizations; the Free plan gives "PR summarization only; code reviews are available through the VS Code extension and CLI."; open-source projects get Team features without paying |
| Self-hosting | Enterprise: single-tenant SaaS, on-prem and air-gapped; the Enterprise card reads "For 30+ users"; no seat minimum for on-prem found on its homepage, pricing, install page or docs index | Enterprise "with 500 or more user seats": a container in your infrastructure, with your own model provider; the page names "air-gapped requirements"; its pricing table also lists "company-selected SaaS regions" on Enterprise |
| Linked repositories | "Cross-repo capabilities" included on Pro Team | multi-repo analysis with 1, 5, 10 and 20 linked repositories on Essentials, Team, Advanced and Enterprise |
| Merge gates | on GitHub, an author self-review checkbox that "Can be configured to add Qodo as a reviewer, allowing the PR to be merged."; compliance labels such as "Failed compliance check" that your own CI action can block on | pre-merge checks in error mode, which with the Request Changes Workflow "block merges until resolved or manually overridden"; built-in checks on Essentials, custom checks from Team; since 5 October 2026, a CodeRabbit Security check that you can require in GitHub, on Advanced and Enterprise |
| Training and storage | "Your code is analyzed and discarded. Nothing stored, logged, or used to train models."; bring your own model keys on Enterprise | "CodeRabbit never uses customer code for model training."; code is "shared with OpenAI and/or Anthropic for reviewing purposes only"; a data retention setting decides whether code-related data is kept for learnings |
| How a finding is filtered | several review agents with shared context, "filtering out low-impact or irrelevant comments before they reach the pull request"; tell it a finding does not apply and Qodo "dismisses the finding as False positive, Rejected, Deferred, or Intentional" | Review, Verification, Chat and Pre-Merge Checks among its parallel agents; "Sandboxed cloud execution with your full repository cloned for isolated analysis"; 50+ static analyzers, linters and SAST tools |
| Noise and learning | review effort mode (Beta), Auto by default, "which dynamically matches review depth to the risk of each change"; "Rules system (no limit)" on Pro Team, "Self-learning system" on Enterprise | "Quiet, Chill, and Assertive profiles"; Learnings on every paid plan |
| Before the pull request | IDE plugins for VS Code, JetBrains IDEs and Visual Studio, and a CLI | an IDE extension for "VS Code, Cursor, Windsurf, and any VS Code-based IDE", and a CLI |
| Security attestation | SOC 2 Type II, on its homepage | SOC 2 Type II, by its changelog |
What the bill depends on
The billing unit is what several comparison pages by third parties get wrong. Qodo writes "Billing is usage-based (not seat-based)." and calls a credit "the unit Qodo uses to meter review activity". CodeRabbit charges per developer and says "you will only be charged for developers who create pull requests". CodeRabbit also renamed its plans: "Essentials is the new name for Pro, and Team is the new name for Pro Plus." A page that prices Qodo per person, or CodeRabbit by its old plan names, describes pricing that is not on either vendor's page today.
The two units meet at a number you can compute. Ten developers who open pull requests cost $240 a month on CodeRabbit Essentials billed annually. The same $240 buys Qodo's 20,000-credit pack, which Qodo estimates at ~144 reviews, or 14.4 reviews per developer. That is arithmetic on the vendors' own prices, not a measurement, and it rests on Qodo's average, because "Smaller PRs draw fewer credits, larger or more complex reviews draw more." Below that rate the Qodo pool costs less; above it the CodeRabbit price per developer does. At CodeRabbit's monthly price the crossover moves to 18 reviews per developer: $300 for ten developers buys 25,000 credits at $.012, ~180 reviews by the same estimate.
Three edges move the result. Qodo's smallest pack is $30 for the whole team, so a team of one pays $24 on CodeRabbit's annual Essentials against $30 at Qodo. Qodo's pricing page calls Pro Team "Designed for up to 30 users" and starts its Enterprise card there, while its docs list "Unlimited users per workspace." for the same plan. CodeRabbit's price holds until a developer passes the hourly allowance, 5 PR reviews per hour on Essentials in a rolling window, and sustained activity can space that developer's reviews out further. Past the allowance, reviews wait unless usage-based reviews are on, at $0.25 per reviewed file. They are optional, but CodeRabbit switches them on in Automatic mode the first time a review passes the limit during a trial, free while the trial lasts, and "Your saved continuation choice carries over when you activate a paid subscription." Through all of this, "There is no total limit on the number of pull requests or repositories you can review".
What counts as a review differs as well. CodeRabbit's rate-limit page says it "reviews pushes, not commits": by default each push gets an incremental review, with a pause after five reviewed commits, and each of those reviews draws on the hourly allowance. Qodo reviews when a pull request is opened, reopened or marked ready, and updates its review on every push only if you turn on "Review every push". Qodo states that "Every code review draws credits from your monthly pool.", so check on its dashboard, which shows "real-time balance and burn rate", what a pushed commit draws.
How each one describes noise and checking
Qodo describes several review agents that share context: "Combining multiple review agents with shared context lets Qodo catch what a single-pass review misses, while filtering out low-impact or irrelevant comments before they reach the pull request." Its review effort mode, in beta, starts at Auto and scales the depth of a review to the risk of the change. When someone tells Qodo a finding does not apply, it records one of four dismissal reasons, so the noise that got through can be counted.
CodeRabbit's architecture page lists a Verification agent among its parallel agents, next to "Sandboxed cloud execution with your full repository cloned for isolated analysis", and its homepage says review generation "Uses agentic code generation and exploration, static verification, and analysis to deliver a review." How much it says is set by profiles, from Quiet to Assertive.
Both are descriptions, not measurements. Each vendor also publishes a number with its method, below; neither is a noise rate for your code.
What each publishes as numbers, and how
| Qodo | CodeRabbit | |
|---|---|---|
| What is compared | Qodo "against 7 other leading AI code review platforms", each on its default settings | Claude models inside CodeRabbit's own review pipeline, Sonnet 5.5 against Sonnet 5 |
| Test set | "100 PRs containing a total of 580 issues", defects injected into merged pull requests from open-source repositories; the benchmark and the reviews it scored are published | 13 hardest known-bug cases from open-source pull requests; a second set of 85 known issues across 44 open-source pull requests is reported for comment counts, speed and cost only, because "judge scoring was pending" |
| Who judges | findings "were rigorously compared against our validated ground truth using an LLM-as-a-judge system" | "an independent judge scored every comment with three votes against the known issue, and only majority-PASS comments count" |
| When | published 4 February 2026, updated 3 September 2026 | published 28 September 2026 |
Qodo's headline, on that method: Qodo is first in its own table, "achieving an F1 score of 60.1%".
CodeRabbit's headline, on its method: Sonnet 5.5 caught 6 of 13 issues through actionable comments, against 4 for Sonnet 5, at 41.2% actionable precision. The same page marks the limit: "Thirteen cases is a small set, and we say so throughout."
The two headlines answer different questions. Qodo's ranks Qodo against other reviewers on a benchmark that Qodo built and judged; CodeRabbit's compares two models inside CodeRabbit. Neither belongs in one column with the other, and no figure about CodeRabbit from a Qodo table appears here. Qodo also publishes a page titled "Qodo vs CodeRabbit: Full Codebase Enforcement vs. Diff-Level Review (2026)", dated 6 July 2026. I did not find a CodeRabbit page about Qodo in CodeRabbit's sitemap (602 addresses), its llms.txt files or its docs index on 14 October 2026. A comparison written by either vendor is that vendor's case, so each tool here is described from its own pages, not from its rival's.
How to choose for a team
| If this is true for your team | Look first at | What the pages say |
|---|---|---|
| Your code review runs on Gerrit | Qodo; its own pages differ on the plan | Qodo's homepage says "Gerrit on Enterprise." and its pricing table marks "Gerrit support" "Not included" on Pro Team; its deployment table marks the "Gerrit" row with a check under Multi-tenant, Single-tenant, On-prem and Air-gapped, its install page lists Gerrit under multi-tenant, the column it marks "All plans", its changelog says Qodo "now fully supports Gerrit across multi-tenant, single-tenant, and on-premises deployments", and its Gerrit install guide asks for "A Qodo environment configured for Gerrit", so ask Qodo which plan your Gerrit setup needs. Gerrit not found on CodeRabbit's platforms page or in its docs index; all read on 14 October 2026 |
| Code must stay inside your network, and you would buy fewer than 500 seats | Qodo Enterprise | CodeRabbit self-hosts "with 500 or more user seats"; Qodo lists on-prem and air-gapped on Enterprise, with no seat minimum that I found on its homepage, pricing, install page or docs index on 14 October 2026 |
| You run GitHub Enterprise Server and want the vendor's shared cloud | either; Qodo's own pages differ | CodeRabbit's cloud connects to a GitHub Enterprise Server instance, through a Reverse Tunnel when the instance cannot accept inbound network access; Qodo's install guide covers "Qodo multi-tenant with GitHub Enterprise Server" and calls multi-tenant "Available on all plans", while its deployment table marks the "GitHub Enterprise" row with a cross under Multi-tenant |
| The bill should follow review volume, under a cap you set | Qodo | one credit pool per workspace, overage at the same per-credit rate up to a monthly cap you set; credits expire at the end of each month |
| The bill should follow the number of people who open pull requests | CodeRabbit | "you will only be charged for developers who create pull requests"; extra charges past the hourly allowance come only from usage-based reviews, which CodeRabbit switches on during a trial the first time a review passes the limit, and which you can keep or turn off when the trial ends |
| Each developer opens many pull requests, or agents open them in bursts | model both bills first | the bills meet at 14.4 reviews per developer a month against CodeRabbit's annual price and at 18 against its monthly price, by Qodo's own estimate; past that rate the CodeRabbit price per developer stays flat, while bursts meet its hourly allowance and sustained heavy use gets a developer's reviews spaced out |
| Written rules must hold a merge | either, by different routes | CodeRabbit: pre-merge checks in error mode with the Request Changes Workflow; Qodo: compliance labels that your CI can block on, or the author self-review checkbox |
| You want each finding checked before it reaches you | CodeRabbit, Qodo, or Sigma (Mnemoverse, the author's company) | CodeRabbit lists a Verification agent among its parallel agents; Qodo's docs describe filtering out low-impact or irrelevant comments before they reach the pull request; Sigma, in closed beta on GitHub by invitation, "checks potential issues and brings the evidence back to your code", and its docs say a fresh verifier "confirms, rejects or reclassifies" each candidate, that "only confirmed candidates are verified findings" and that suspicions no verifier confirmed stay labeled separately; Sigma runs on Claude Code and OpenAI models and reviews its team's own repositories every day; its homepage takes requests through a "Request beta access" form and says "A request does not grant access automatically." |
Other tools also review pull requests: GitHub Copilot code review, the open-source PR-Agent, which its README calls "a community-maintained legacy project of Qodo", and Sigma.
A two-week test that settles it
Both vendors let you try before paying. CodeRabbit's docs say "New organizations start with a 14-day Advanced trial.", and at Qodo "Every workspace begins with a 14-day free trial starting at signup." Install both on one busy repository and let them review the same pull requests. If a busy repository passes CodeRabbit's hourly allowance during the trial, those extra reviews are free, and the usage-based setting they switch on is worth checking before the trial ends. CodeRabbit's default trial "includes Advanced features", so compare it against the price of the plan you would buy.
Before you start, take five merged bug-fix pull requests and open the commits that introduced those bugs as new pull requests. Qodo's own benchmark also starts from known defects in real pull requests, "intentionally injecting defects into genuine, merged pull requests", and the method works on your code as well as on theirs. If you have access to a third reviewer, such as GitHub Copilot code review or Sigma, give it the same pull requests.
Mark every comment as a real bug, a wrong claim or noise, and note how long each took to confirm. At the end, Qodo says it will "suggest a credit pack based on the review volume your team generated during the trial"; put that price next to CodeRabbit's price for the developers who opened pull requests in the same two weeks. You then have four numbers of your own: known bugs caught out of five, wrong claims per pull request, minutes per comment and the cost of a month. They answer Qodo vs CodeRabbit for your code, which no vendor's chart can do.
Sources, all read on 14 October 2026. Qodo: homepage, pricing, pricing and usage, triggering a review, review effort, how review works, pull request commands, custom compliance, deployment models, install, GitHub Enterprise Server install, Gerrit install, changelog, docs index, benchmark write-up, Qodo vs CodeRabbit. CodeRabbit: homepage, pricing, plans, rate limits, usage-based reviews, platforms, GitHub Enterprise Server, Reverse Tunnel, self-hosted, FAQ, architecture, IDE and CLI, multi-repo analysis, pre-merge checks, changelog, docs index, Sonnet 5.5 write-up, sitemap. Other reviewers: GitHub Copilot code review, PR-Agent, Sigma homepage, docs and reading a review.
Top comments (1)
the two-week test is the most useful part. one number i’d add to the four is what happens after merge, how many of the PRs each tool passed caused an incident in the next month. that’s the one review-time metrics can’t show. it’s also where Tomosu sits, next to tools like these instead of instead of them. it scores PRs on production reliability and runs alongside CodeRabbit over MCP.