Greptile

AI code reviewer that understands your codebase

Paid Dev Tools

Overview

Greptile is an AI code-review tool that performs automated GitHub pull-request reviews with full codebase understanding. It acts as a code assistant for teams, offering custom rules, test generation, chat, and CLI access, with unlimited repositories on all plans.

⚡ Dev Tools 💵 Paid: Pro from $30/seat/mo (50 reviews included, $1 per extra); Enterprise custom; free for open source 📅 Listed 10 Jun 2026

Our take

Greptile reviews pull requests with an understanding of the whole codebase rather than just the diff, which is the distinction that makes AI code review useful rather than noisy. Per-seat pricing with a review allowance is sensible, and it is free for open source. The risk with any automated reviewer is alert fatigue — comments humans learn to scroll past.

Worth it if

Teams with enough pull request volume that first-pass review is a genuine bottleneck.

Look elsewhere if

Small teams reviewing a few PRs a week, where a human read is quicker than tuning a bot.

✨ Features

Automated PR Review

Reviews GitHub pull requests with full codebase context.

Custom Rules

Lets teams define their own review rules and standards.

Test Generation

Generates tests automatically via the TREX feature.

Unlimited Repos

Includes unlimited repositories and integrations on all plans.

⚖️ Pros & Cons

Pros

✓ Transparent per-seat pricing
✓ Free for open-source projects
✓ 50% startup discount

Cons

✗ Per-review overage costs
✗ Self-hosting only on Enterprise

💰 Pricing

POPULAR

Pro

$30 /mo

  • Per seat, 14-day free trial
  • 50 code reviews per seat ($1 per extra review)
  • Unlimited repositories and users
  • Custom rules creation
  • 50% off for early-stage startups

Enterprise

Custom

  • Contact sales for a quote
  • Self-hosting in your own infrastructure
  • SSO/SAML and security/compliance
  • GitHub Enterprise compatibility
  • Dedicated Slack support

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

Does it replace human code review?

No, and teams that treat it that way regret it. It catches mechanical issues, missed error paths and inconsistencies with existing patterns. It does not evaluate whether the change is the right change, whether the design fits, or whether the feature should exist. Those are the parts review actually exists for.

How do I stop developers ignoring the comments?

Tune aggressively toward precision over recall. A reviewer that comments on everything gets muted within a fortnight, and after that it catches nothing regardless of how good it is. Start narrow — correctness issues only — and expand scope once the team trusts that a comment is usually worth reading.