Home / Directory / AI SaaS tooling / AI code review / CodeRabbit
CodeRabbit
AI code review bot that comments on pull requests with context-aware findings, summaries, and incremental review workflows for engineering teams. CodeRabbit raised a $143 million Series C at a $1.5 billion valuation in August 2026.
Engineering teams that want an AI reviewer on every pull request without replacing human review ownership.
Teams that only want an IDE autocomplete plugin with no PR workflow.
Co-founded by Harjot Gill.
Verdict
CodeRabbit is a good fit when pull request review is the bottleneck and you want an AI teammate in GitHub or GitLab. Public growth disclosures place it firmly mid-market and rising. Practitioners like actionable PR comments; buyers who need test-generation and broader code governance may still compare Qodo.
Score Breakdown
How CodeRabbit scores in the categories that matter to its buyers.
Pricing
CodeRabbit publishes Free and Pro plans with seat or usage packaging on coderabbit.ai. Figures below are USD list signals as of September 2026; confirm live limits before budgeting.
| Plan / SKU | Meter | Price (USD) | What stands out |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | per user / OSS | $0 | Limited PR reviews |
| Pro | per seat / month | Published on site | Higher review limits |
| Team controls | per seat / month | Published on site | Org admin and policies |
| Enterprise | annual | Custom quote | Security, SSO, and support |
The Field at a Glance
How CodeRabbit compares with other AI code review vendors we reviewed, by Overall Score and relative typical engagement cost.
CodeRabbit scores 7.9 in AI code review, ahead of cubic (7.7), Greptile (7.7), and Qodo (7.3). Relative cost lands lower for this subcategory.
Compared with …
- CodeRabbit vs Greptile 7.9/7.7
- CodeRabbit vs Qodo 7.9/7.3
Use-case matrix
| Use case | Fit | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| AI pull request review | Strong | Core CodeRabbit product. |
| GitHub-native bot workflow | Strong | Common adoption path. |
| Incremental / iterative review | Strong | Stated strength. |
| Agentic test generation suites | Mixed | Qodo generates tests as well as reviewing code. |
| IDE autocomplete only | Weak | Tabnine and Augment sell IDE coding assistants. |
| Meeting transcription | Poor | CodeRabbit does not transcribe meetings. |
Review Excerpts
Representative buyer views drawn from public information about CodeRabbit. Paid reviews and pay-for-play sites were excluded.
“Pull-request summaries and line comments arrive within minutes and cover most routine review feedback.”
Representative buyer view
“We run it on every pull request and keep human review for design and security changes.”
Representative buyer view
“Comment volume can get noisy on large pull requests until the team tunes its review instructions.”
Representative buyer view
Where customer reviews couldn't be found, our analysts attempted to give a voice to buyer sentiment, drawing on real information from review sites, forums, and product documentation.
Based on: CodeRabbit’s website
Company Facts
- Founded
- 2023 (CB Insights)
- Headquarters
- San Francisco, California, United States (CB Insights)
- Total funding raised
- $222.61M (CB Insights)
- Key investors
- CRV, Engineering Capital, Scale Venture Partners, Harmony Partners, Flex Capital (CB Insights)
- Website
- coderabbit.ai
Key Leadership
Harjot Gill
Co-founder and CEO
Methodology
This page is an independent evaluation of CodeRabbit for buyers comparing options in AI code Review. AI Industry Reviews accepts no sponsorships, advertising, or pay-for-placement fees. CodeRabbit did not pay for this review.
What we scored
The headline number is an Overall Score on a 0-10 scale. Eight criteria sit under it in two groups.
- Buyer outcomes (for AI code Review)
- PR review comment quality
- GitHub / GitLab workflow fit
- Review speed & noise control
- Test generation / broader governance
- Company & commercial
- Innovation & product leadership
- Project management & communication
- Pricing
- Contract fairness
Pricing measures whether the price looks fair for the value delivered, including packaging and renewal friction that show up in real buying cycles.
Score Composition
| Input | Weight | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 40% | A proprietary read of what practitioners say about likes, complaints, and day-to-day use, including public review sites, forums, and private chat rooms. Paid reviews and pay-for-play sites are out of scope. |
| Product | 35% | Hands-on look at screens and workflows. |
| Pricing | 15% | Whether the price looks fair for what you get. |
| Docs & training | 10% | Docs, tutorials, and training material. |
How we balanced the evidence
The Overall Score is the simple average of the eight criteria. Recommendation language follows that score and the use-case matrix above.
Scope
CodeRabbit is graded here as AI code Review. Criteria scores can move as more review volume and product checks are added.