AI code review tools read a pull request and leave comments, summaries and suggested fixes before a human reviewer looks at it. CodeRabbit and Qodo are two names that come up often. Both connect to the major code hosting platforms, but they price and meter their reviews in quite different ways, and one of them changed its plans during 2026.
This guide compares what each vendor documents on plans, usage limits, platform support and data handling. It also explains how to run a fair trial on your own repositories, since review quality depends heavily on your codebase and standards.
How we researched this: we did not run hands-on tests for this article. It is based on the vendor’s own documentation and public sources, checked on 11 November 2026. Features and prices change, so confirm details on the vendor’s site before you buy.
Key takeaways
- CodeRabbit lists per-developer plans (Essentials, Team, Advanced and Enterprise) with hourly rate limits, while Qodo lists a team-wide credit pool at $0.015 per credit.
- Qodo says it has no permanent free tier and offers a 14-day trial; CodeRabbit lists a Free plan with limited features and a free plan for open source.
- Both state that they do not train on customer code, though their data handling details differ.
- Third-party pricing articles disagree with Qodo’s current page, which shows how quickly these plans change.
- Test both on the same set of real pull requests and count useful comments, false alarms and missed issues.
Why compare these two
Review tools earn their keep when they catch real problems early and do not bury reviewers in noise. Neither vendor’s documentation can tell you how well it will perform on your code, so a comparison from documents has to focus on the things that are documented: where the tool runs, how it is metered, what it costs and what happens to your code.
AI review comments can also be wrong, so treat them as a first pass rather than approval. Our guide on how to check AI output for mistakes applies here, as does our explanation of AI hallucinations.
Quick overview
| Point | CodeRabbit | Qodo |
|---|---|---|
| Metering | Per developer, with hourly rate limits per plan | Credits pooled across the team; smaller pull requests use fewer credits |
| Free option | Free plan (summaries; reviews via IDE and CLI) and a free open source plan | No permanent free tier; 14-day trial; open source programme by application |
| Paid self-serve | Essentials, Team, Advanced | Pro Team |
| Larger organisations | Enterprise, contact sales | Enterprise, 30 or more users, contact sales |
| Platforms | GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps | GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps; Gerrit on Enterprise |
Criteria that matter
- Fit with your hosting platform and workflow.
- How usage is metered and what happens when a busy week hits the limit.
- Cost per developer against cost per review.
- Context. Whether reviews look beyond the changed lines.
- Data handling, including retention and training.
- Controls for teams, such as SSO, audit logs and self-hosting.
Platforms and workflow
CodeRabbit’s FAQ says it supports GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket and Azure DevOps, with editor plugins for VS Code (including Cursor and Windsurf) and, in beta, JetBrains IDEs. Reviews run automatically when a pull request is opened against the default branch, and controls can narrow which branches, drafts, labels or titles get reviewed. It says reviews use repository context beyond the diff, for example checking a caller in another file that a change might affect. You can trigger a review by commenting @coderabbitai review for an incremental review or @coderabbitai full review for the whole pull request.
Qodo’s pricing page lists agentic pull request review across GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket and Azure DevOps, together with a Context Engine, rules management, a Cross Repo Software Map, an Agentic Quality Toolbox, an analytics dashboard and strict data retention on both plans. Gerrit support is listed for Enterprise only. It adds that developers do not need Qodo accounts.
On plan features, CodeRabbit’s documentation lists Essentials as including AI code review, fix comments, docstrings, MCP and pre-merge checks. Team adds Triage, CI fixer, issue planning, unit test generation and merge-conflict resolution. Advanced adds continuous pull request security review. Enterprise adds self-hosting, multi-organisation support, SSO, an SLA with a dedicated customer success manager, marketplace billing, API access, custom role-based access and audit logging.
Usage limits
CodeRabbit documents per-developer hourly rate limits. The table below reproduces what its plans page lists.
| Plan | PR reviews per hour | IDE per hour | CLI per hour | Files per review | Chat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Free | 1 (summary only) | 3 | 3 | 150 | Not available |
| Essentials | 5 | 5 | 5 | 150 | 50 |
| Team | 8 | 8 | 8 | 300 | 75 |
| Advanced | 10 | 10 | 10 | 300 | 100 |
| Enterprise | 12 | 12 | 12 | 300 | 100 |
The page also lists limits such as linked repositories (0 on Free, 1 on Essentials, 5 on Team, 10 on Advanced, 20 on Enterprise). Essentials, Team and Advanced can enable usage-based reviews to cover eligible reviews beyond included limits, and Deep Scan is usage-based on paid plans.
Qodo meters differently. Its page says a credit meters review activity, with smaller pull requests using fewer credits and larger or more complex ones using more. Credits expire at the end of each monthly cycle and do not roll over. When base credits run out, reviews continue as overage at the same per-credit rate, capped by a monthly spending cap you set. The FAQ states there are no limits on repositories, users or reviews, and the page lists “no rate limits” as a Pro Team feature.
Pricing models
Checked on 11 November 2026. Plans change often. See how to read an AI tool’s pricing page.
CodeRabbit
CodeRabbit’s plans page lists prices per developer a month. Essentials (formerly Pro) is $24 billed annually or $30 monthly. Team (formerly Pro+) is $48 annually or $60 monthly. Advanced is $72 annually or $90 monthly. Free and the open source plan are $0, and Enterprise is by contact. New organisations get a 14-day Advanced trial. The Free plan supports public and private repositories but provides pull request summaries only, with code reviews through the VS Code extension and CLI.
Qodo
Qodo’s pricing page lists Pro Team at $0.015 per credit, pooled across the team, with credit tiers of 2,000, 4,000 and 16,000 credits a month, no annual commitment and the ability to switch packs. By our own arithmetic, 2,000 credits at that rate is $30 a month, but Qodo does not state pack prices in the text we read, so confirm. A 14-day trial needs no credit card. The page says “We don’t offer a permanent free tier,” though qualified open source projects can apply for free access. Enterprise is custom for 30 or more users.
Third-party pages differ. One article says Qodo’s earlier Teams plan was $30 per user a month on annual billing, with a free tier of 30 reviews a month. Another, tracking pricing changes, says per-seat Teams pricing was replaced by a team-wide credit pool in mid-2026, and gives a rate of $0.012 per credit and packs of 2,500, 5,000 and 20,000 credits, which does not match the official page. We rely on the vendor’s page and treat the rest as evidence that plans moved recently.
| Cost point | CodeRabbit | Qodo |
|---|---|---|
| Unit | Per developer a month | Per credit, pooled across the team |
| Entry paid | Essentials $24 (annual) or $30 (monthly) | Pro Team at $0.015 per credit, 2,000 credit tier |
| Higher tiers | Team $48 or $60; Advanced $72 or $90 | 4,000 and 16,000 credit tiers |
| Free | Free plan and open source plan | No permanent free tier; 14-day trial |
| Going over | Usage-based reviews can be enabled on paid plans | Overage at the same rate, up to your spending cap |
Privacy and data
Both products send code to AI models, so read the terms with your security team and see how to protect company data when using AI tools.
CodeRabbit’s FAQ says code is sent to OpenAI and/or Anthropic only for performing reviews. It caches encrypted code and dependency archives and stores vector representations of code for context indexing. Longer-lived context such as Learnings is stored by default, and you can opt out. Self-hosted deployments on Enterprise can opt out of all data retention. Model output logging is off by default. CodeRabbit states that it never uses customer code for training and that OpenAI and Anthropic do not use it for training either, whether data retention is enabled or disabled.
Qodo’s page says it does not train AI models on customer code and lists strict data retention on both plans. Enterprise adds on-premises or air-gapped deployment, bring-your-own-key, audit logs and a data processing agreement. We did not find details of how long Qodo retains data or which model providers it uses, so ask before adopting it.
Who each suits
CodeRabbit may suit you if
- You prefer predictable per-developer pricing.
- You want a free tier or an open source plan to start.
- You want a wide feature ladder, including security review and unit test generation on higher plans.
Qodo may suit you if
- You prefer paying by review activity and pooling credits across a team.
- You want no seat limits on repositories or users for the self-serve plan.
- You may need on-premises or air-gapped deployment through Enterprise.
Think twice if
- You have a very small team and no budget, since Qodo has no permanent free tier.
- You merge many large pull requests, where credit use or hourly limits could bite.
- Your policy bans sending code to third-party models.
How to run your own test
Follow how to test an AI tool before you pay for it.
- Pick 20 recent merged pull requests of mixed size, including some with known bugs that were found later.
- Run each tool on the same set, on a fork or test repository if you prefer.
- Have a senior developer label each comment as useful, noise or wrong.
- Count issues each tool missed that a human reviewer caught.
- Record credits or review quota used and compare with each tool’s pricing.
- Check how each tool handles your style rules and whether comments can be tuned.
Decision checklist
- Does the tool support our hosting platform?
- Do we prefer per-developer or credit-based pricing?
- What happens in a busy week when limits are reached?
- Where does our code go, and is that approved?
- Do we need self-hosting or SSO?
- Do comments save reviewer time on our own pull requests?
- Who owns the settings and rules?
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper?
It depends on team size and pull request volume. CodeRabbit charges per developer, while Qodo charges per credit used. Test with your own pull requests.
Do they work with GitLab and Bitbucket?
Both list GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket and Azure DevOps. Qodo lists Gerrit on Enterprise.
Is there a free plan?
CodeRabbit lists a Free plan with limited features and an open source plan. Qodo says it has no permanent free tier but offers a trial and an open source programme.
Do they train on my code?
Both vendors state they do not train on customer code. Read their terms and contracts for specifics.
Can AI review replace human review?
Neither vendor positions this in the pages we read, and AI comments can be wrong. Treat them as an additional check.
Why do prices differ between websites?
Both vendors changed plans in 2026, and third-party articles lag behind. Use the vendor page and ask for a quote.
Conclusion
CodeRabbit and Qodo cover the same job with different billing logic. CodeRabbit offers tiered per-developer plans with documented rate limits and a free entry point. Qodo offers a pooled credit model, a trial and no permanent free tier. Both state they do not train on your code. The right choice depends on your pull request volume, platform and data rules, and only a trial on your own code will show review quality.
See also how to compare AI tools side by side fairly and how to choose an AI tool.
Sources
- CodeRabbit docs: plans, accessed 11 November 2026
- CodeRabbit docs: FAQ, accessed 11 November 2026
- Qodo pricing page, accessed 11 November 2026
- DEV Community (third party): Qodo pricing, accessed 11 November 2026
- Usagepricing (third party): Qodo packaging change, accessed 11 November 2026
