Home / Directory / AI SaaS tooling / AI code review / Qodo
Qodo
Agentic code integrity platform (formerly CodiumAI) focused on code review, test generation, and governance for teams shipping AI-assisted software. Qodo raised a $70 million Series B led by Qumra Capital in March 2026.
Engineering orgs that want AI review plus test generation and code governance in one agentic workflow.
Teams that only want a lightweight PR comment bot with no test or policy layer.
Co-founded by Itamar Friedman.
Verdict
Qodo is a good fit when AI-generated code is entering the repo and you need review plus tests, not only autocomplete. Public commercial signals land in this directory's mid-market band. Practitioners like the broader integrity story; teams that only want a PR bot may still prefer CodeRabbit for simplicity.
Score Breakdown
How Qodo scores in the categories that matter to its buyers.
Pricing
Qodo publishes developer and team plans on qodo.ai. Figures below are USD list signals as of September 2026; Enterprise remains quote-led.
| Plan / SKU | Meter | Price (USD) | What stands out |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free / Developer | per user | $0 / low | Limited reviews and tests |
| Teams | per seat / month | Published on site | Shared policies and higher limits |
| Business | per seat / month | Published on site | Admin and governance extras |
| Enterprise | annual | Custom quote | SSO, security, and support |
The Field at a Glance
How Qodo compares with other AI code review vendors we reviewed, by Overall Score and relative typical engagement cost.
Qodo scores 7.3 in AI code review, under CodeRabbit (7.9), cubic (7.7), and Greptile (7.7). Relative cost lands mid-band for this subcategory.
Compared with …
- Qodo vs CodeRabbit 7.9/7.3
- Qodo vs Greptile 7.7/7.3
Use-case matrix
| Use case | Fit | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| AI code review | Strong | Core Qodo motion. |
| Automated test generation | Strong | Stated differentiator. |
| Code governance policies | Strong | Integrity framing. |
| Simple PR comment bot only | Mixed | CodeRabbit focuses on pull-request comments. |
| IDE autocomplete alone | Weak | IDE autocomplete is the job of coding assistants such as Tabnine. |
| Document IDP | Poor | Qodo does not extract data from documents. |
Review Excerpts
Excerpts from public reviews and forum discussions of Qodo, plus representative buyer views drawn from public information. Paid reviews and pay-for-play sites were excluded.
“My team has been using Qodo for a while now and i've found it to be pretty helpful. Every once in a while it finds a serious issue, but the most useful part from my experience are the features that are geared towards speeding up my review rather than replacing it.”
“I took a look at Qodo and left because there is barely any activity on Github or Discord, and their releases only contain media, as if by mistake…”
“We use it for review checks and test suggestions on pull requests in a monorepo.”
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: Qodo’s website
Key Leadership
Itamar Friedman
Co-founder and CEO
Methodology
This page is an independent evaluation of Qodo for buyers comparing options in AI code Review. AI Industry Reviews accepts no sponsorships, advertising, or pay-for-placement fees. Qodo 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)
- AI code review quality
- Test generation
- Code governance / policies
- Lightweight PR-bot simplicity
- 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
Qodo is graded here as AI code Review. Criteria scores can move as more review volume and product checks are added.