Greptile is an AI code-review tool that comments on pull requests using context from your whole codebase, not just the diff, free for individuals (50 credits/month), Pro at $30/seat/month. Pick it when review quality on a large, familiar codebase matters more than a generic linter; free tiers exist for qualifying open-source projects and early-stage startups.
Other good fits
An open-source project (MIT or Apache licensed) or a pre-Series A startup that qualifies for Greptile's discounted or free tiers.
+ Pros
Read pros
Greptile reviews pull requests using an AI model that's been given context from your entire codebase, not just the diff being reviewed, aiming to catch issues a diff-only reviewer would miss (a change that breaks an assumption made elsewhere in the code, for instance). It comments directly on the pull request, and teams can define custom rules for what it should flag.
Pick it when…
Your codebase is large or complex enough that diff-only review misses cross-file issues.
You want custom review rules specific to your team's conventions, not just generic linting.
You qualify for a discount: free for qualifying MIT/Apache open-source projects, or 50% off for pre-Series A startups under $2M revenue.
− Cons
Read cons
AI review is a first pass, not a substitute for human review on anything with real consequences; treat its comments the way you'd treat a junior reviewer's, worth reading, not worth merging on faith. Per-seat pricing plus per-credit overage means cost scales with both team size and pull-request volume, which can add up for an active team.
Pick something else when…
You want simple static analysis or linting, not contextual AI review. A dedicated linter for your language is lighter and more predictable.
Your codebase is small enough that diff-only review already catches what matters. A simpler, cheaper review tool may suffice.
You want code review as part of a broader coding-agent workflow.Cursor's Bugbot or GitHub Copilot's review features may already be in your existing toolchain.
Avoid if
Your team is large enough that per-seat pricing plus per-credit overage adds up faster than a flat-fee alternative.
Workflow
Connect Greptile to your repository → let it index the codebase for context → open a pull request and let Greptile comment automatically → define custom rules for patterns specific to your team → review and act on its comments the same way you would a human reviewer's, since it's a first pass, not a replacement for judgment.
Qualifying open-source projects (MIT or Apache licence) get a free tier; pre-Series A startups under $2M annual revenue get 50% off. Extra credits beyond a seat's included allowance cost $1 each, so a team reviewing a lot of large pull requests should watch credit usage against the included amount.
Restrictions
Enterprise-only features (self-hosting, SSO/SAML) aren't available on Starter or Pro. The free Starter tier is limited to one active developer, so a team needs Pro or above.
First project
Documentation-based suggestion — not run here.
Connect Greptile to one real (or realistic test) repository and open a pull request with a deliberately introduced issue that depends on context elsewhere in the codebase, not visible in the diff alone. Check whether Greptile catches it.
Done when you've tested at least one cross-file issue and can judge whether Greptile's contextual review genuinely added value over what a diff-only tool would have caught.
Links & evidence
Documentation-based · not hands-on · Sep 23, 2026
Rests on Greptile's pricing page, read on 2026-09-23. No repository was connected to Greptile for this review.
Greptile pricing · Sep 23, 2026 — Starter free (50 credits/month), Pro $30/seat/month, Enterprise custom; open-source and startup discounts.
Greptile homepage · Sep 23, 2026 — Product overview: AI code review with whole-codebase context.
GitHub pricing · Sep 23, 2026 — Comparison alternative with built-in Copilot code review.
Further review notes & alternatives
Alternatives and trade-offs
GitHub's own Copilot code review wins when you want review built into a platform you already use, without adding a separate tool.
Cursor's Bugbot wins when your team already works in Cursor for coding and wants review in the same place.
A dedicated linter or static-analysis tool wins when the codebase is small and the goal is catching mechanical issues, not contextual ones.
