Pick by four things your team already knows: which code host you use, how you want to be billed, whether the reviewer has to run inside your network, and what evidence you want behind a reported bug. On their own pages, CodeRabbit lists Azure DevOps, bills per developer who opens pull requests and self-hosts from 500 seats; Greptile lists Gitea and Perforce, bills per seat plus credits per review, offers self-hosting on Enterprise and can run your PR branch in a sandbox (TREX, in beta). Neither publishes a neutral head-to-head number, so the tiebreaker is both free trials on the same pull requests.
Every fact below comes from each tool's own pages as I read them on 5 October 2026, and neither CodeRabbit nor Greptile saw this text before publication.
The two side by side
Each cell is from the vendor's own pages, read on 5 October 2026; links are at the end. "Not found" means not found on the platform pages, homepage and full docs index I searched that day.
| CodeRabbit | Greptile | |
|---|---|---|
| Code hosts listed | GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps, Bitbucket Cloud and Data Center, GitHub Enterprise Server, self-managed GitLab | GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Cursor Origin; on Enterprise also GitHub Enterprise Server, GitHub Enterprise Cloud with data residency, GitLab Self-Managed, Bitbucket Data Center, Gitea; Perforce on-premises |
| Not found on its pages | Gitea, Perforce | Azure DevOps |
| When it reviews | automatically when a PR opens against the main branch, then on new commits; @coderabbitai review on demand |
on open, push or rebase, as configured; @greptileai on demand; drafts skipped by default |
| What you pay for | developers who create pull requests: Essentials $24 per developer per month billed annually, $30 monthly; 5 PR reviews per developer per hour on Essentials; optional overflow at $0.25 per reviewed file | seats: Pro $30 per seat per month with 50 credits per seat; Base review 1 credit, Plus 3, Apex 10, T-Rex 3; extra credits $1, overages per author |
| Free entry | PR summaries on pull requests; reviews in the VS Code extension and CLI; open-source projects get Team features | 1 active developer, 50 credits a month; free for qualified non-commercial OSS projects |
| Self-hosting | Enterprise, 500 or more user seats, with your own model provider | Enterprise, air-gapped included, with custom LLM providers; docs size a Docker Compose install "Up to 100 developers"; no seat minimum found |
| Model providers (cloud service) | "Your code is shared with OpenAI and/or Anthropic for reviewing purposes only" | "Greptile uses both OpenAI and Anthropic's API platforms for AI inference." |
| Training on your data | "CodeRabbit never uses customer code for model training." | may train on de-identified customer data, with an opt-out; not on self-hosted installs unless configured |
| How a finding is checked | a Verification agent, sandboxed execution with the repository cloned, 50+ static analyzers | TREX (Beta) writes tests, runs the PR branch in a sandbox, attaches logs or screenshots |
| Noise controls | Quiet, Chill and Assertive profiles; auto reviews can pause after 1 or 2 commits | strictness 1 to 3, comment-type filters; adapts to reactions over 2 to 3 weeks |
| Before the pull request | IDE extension and CLI | CLI and MCP server |
How each one says it handles false positives
CodeRabbit describes a pipeline that filters before it posts. Its architecture page lists "Specialized AI agents working in parallel: Review, Verification, Chat, Pre-Merge Checks", on top of "Sandboxed cloud execution with your full repository cloned for isolated analysis". Its September write-up says what reaches you: "Reported comments is the post-pipeline count after verification, deduplication, and filtering; someone still has to read each one." The homepage line "Verifies findings to reduce false positives and then fixes it in a PR." sits in the section on CodeRabbit Security, its security product, so for pull request review I rely on the architecture page and the write-up.
Greptile describes a run that produces evidence. "TREX runs your PR branch in a sandbox to catch the bugs that only show up at runtime." The docs say it "Writes targeted tests for the PR, including changes and edge cases", and the TREX page says "It shows what happened with logs, screenshots, traces, scripts, videos, or API output attached to the PR comment." TREX is labelled Beta, public since 15 June 2026 by the changelog, and a T-Rex review costs 3 credits, so you choose where to turn it on.
So with TREX on, a runtime bug claim can arrive with an artifact you open and check; with CodeRabbit, the check happened before posting, and you judge the comment and its reasoning. Which fits depends on how much of your risk only shows when the code runs.
What each publishes as numbers, and how
| CodeRabbit | Greptile | |
|---|---|---|
| What is compared | Claude models inside CodeRabbit's own pipeline | Greptile against four other reviewers |
| Test set | 13 hardest known-bug cases; a second set of 85 known issues across 44 open-source pull requests is reported for comment counts, latency, token usage and cost only, because "judge scoring was pending" | 50 real bugs, 10 from each of 5 open-source repositories |
| Who judges | "an independent judge scored every comment with three votes against the known issue, and only majority-PASS comments count" | a bug counts when the tool names the faulty code in a line comment and explains the impact; "All results were verified against the known bug." |
| Headline | Sonnet 5.5 caught 6 of 13 issues through actionable comments, at 41.2% actionable precision (passing actionable comments divided by all actionable comments) | Greptile first of five, at an 82% catch rate (bugs caught out of 50) |
| When | published 28 September 2026 | "conducted in July 2025" |
| What it leaves out | "Thirteen cases is a small set, and we say so throughout." | "false positives, style suggestions, and unrelated comments did not affect the catch rate" |
| Numbers without a method on the page | the IDE extension is said to be "reducing PR comment noise by 80%" | TREX "catches ~20% more bugs than review alone", with the method given only as "in evals" in the changelog |
The two headlines answer different questions: CodeRabbit's is about which model it runs, Greptile's ranks Greptile against rivals on a run more than a year old that did not count false positives. Neither belongs in one column with the other. Greptile also publishes a page titled "Greptile vs CodeRabbit: AI Code Review Tools Compared (2025)"; I did not find a CodeRabbit page about Greptile in CodeRabbit's sitemap (586 addresses), its llms.txt or its docs index on 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Repositories live in Azure DevOps | CodeRabbit | not found in Greptile's docs |
| Repositories live in Gitea or Perforce | Greptile | not found in CodeRabbit's docs |
| Code must stay in your network, fewer than 500 seats | Greptile | CodeRabbit self-hosts from 500 user seats |
| You want a failing test or a log attached to a runtime bug claim | Greptile with TREX | Beta, 3 credits per T-Rex review |
| The bill should follow headcount, not review volume | CodeRabbit | usage-based reviews only if an admin turns them on, with a spending cap; Greptile can cap flex usage down to $0, and then skips reviews past an author's 50 included credits |
| A few authors open many pull requests, or agents open them in bursts | model both bills first | hourly allowance per developer at CodeRabbit; credits per review, overages per author at Greptile |
| Your policy rules out training on your code | read both data pages with whoever owns the policy | Greptile may train on de-identified data unless you opt out |
| You want a reported bug checked before it reaches you | CodeRabbit, Greptile with TREX, or Sigma (Mnemoverse, the author's company) | CodeRabbit describes a Verification agent and sandboxed execution with the repository cloned, before a comment is posted; TREX (Beta) writes tests, runs the PR branch in a sandbox and attaches logs or screenshots to the PR comment; 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 |
CodeRabbit and Greptile are not the only options: GitHub Copilot code review, the open-source PR-Agent and Sigma also review pull requests.
A two-week test that settles it
Both vendors let you try before paying: CodeRabbit says "All plans include a 14-day free trial", and Greptile's Pro plan offers a "14 day free trial". Install both on one busy repository and let them review the same pull requests.
Before you start, take five merged bug-fix pull requests and open the commits that introduced those bugs as new pull requests. That is the method behind Greptile's own benchmark ("10 real bug-fix PRs were traced back to the commits that introduced the bugs"), and it works on your code as well as on theirs.
Mark every comment as a real bug, a wrong claim or noise, and note how long it took to confirm. After two weeks you have three numbers of your own: known bugs caught out of five, wrong claims per pull request, minutes per comment. They answer CodeRabbit vs Greptile for your code, which no vendor's chart can do.
Sources, all read on 5 October 2026. CodeRabbit: homepage, pricing, plans, platforms, self-hosted, FAQ, architecture, review commands, IDE and CLI, docs index, Sonnet 5.5 write-up, sitemap. Greptile: homepage, pricing, billing, TREX, key features, triggers and strictness, developer essentials, code providers, self-hosting, security, benchmarks, changelog, CLI, docs index, Greptile vs CodeRabbit. Other reviewers: GitHub Copilot code review, PR-Agent, Sigma homepage, docs and reading a review.
Top comments (2)
I actually have both tools compared intelligenttools.co/compare/codera...
I've never tried Greptile, but I have used CodeRabbit, and it proved useful.
Useful is the part I would like to hear more about, because it is the one thing no pricing page can tell you. Was it the bugs it caught, or how little noise you had to read past to get to them?