We ran the leading AI code review tools against a common corpus of 118 real bugs from open-source pull requests. Macroscope found the most, at 48.3%, with roughly 4X less noise than the next tool down.
Usage-based pricing: around $0.95 per review, never per seat. $100 in usage credit to start. Setup under 5 minutes. SOC 2 Type II.
One dataset, one grading standard, every tool run on the same pull requests. Detection rate is the share of known bugs each tool reported.
| # | Tool | Bug detection rate | Bugs found | Cost in test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Macroscope | 48.3% | 57 of 118 | $30 |
| 2 | CodeRabbit | 45.8% | 54 of 118 | $30 |
| 3 | Cursor Bugbot | 42.4% | 50 of 118 | $40 |
| 4 | Greptile | 23.6% | 17 of 72 | $30 |
| 5 | Graphite Diamond | 18.3% | 21 of 115 | $20 |
Methodology: 118 real bugs drawn from merged open-source pull requests across Go, Rust, Python, JavaScript, TypeScript, Swift, Java and Kotlin. Not every tool completed every case, so the denominator is shown per tool rather than assumed. Figures are from our own evaluation and are reproducible from the dataset. Read the full benchmark.
The tool that comments on everything is the tool your team turns off. Macroscope comments only on correctness issues worth fixing, so the signal-to-noise ratio stays high enough that engineers keep reading the reviews. Turn on Approvability — off by default — and 40% of pull requests auto-approve, so your team only looks at what actually needs attention.
Per-seat plans start with a fixed monthly subscription for each seat, before a single review is run. Usage-based pricing means you pay only for the reviews you actually get, with no seat fee underneath, which is why it stays cost-effective as the team grows. $100 in usage credit to start, no seat count to negotiate.
Most AI code review tools start with a per-seat subscription of $24 to $40 a month, and some meter usage on top of that. Macroscope has no seat fee at all, so the bill moves with the code you ship rather than the size of the team.
25 developers at $24 a seat, the cheapest published tier of the tools above. That is the subscription floor: several of them then charge for reviews on top, at around $1 each once an included allowance runs out.
$0.05 per KB reviewed with a 10KB minimum. An average pull request is 19KB, so an average review is about $0.95. No subscription underneath it, and a quiet month genuinely costs less.
That $600 subscription is what 632 Macroscope reviews cost outright. Before a single review is billed, a 25-developer team on the cheapest per-seat tier has already committed the equivalent of 25 pull requests per developer for the month. And with Approvability enabled, 40% of pull requests auto-approve, so a share of that work never needs a human at all.
Per-seat figures are the vendors’ own published list prices, re-read off their pricing pages on 2026-08-17 and kept in competitorPricing.ts. To be straight about it: usage metering is no longer unique to us. Greptile bundles review credits into its seat fee and bills about $1 beyond them, CodeRabbit sells a usage add-on above its per-seat plans, and Cursor BugBot is usage-based inside a Cursor subscription. The difference here is that there is no seat fee underneath the usage at all. Macroscope figures come from the shared pricing constants that also generate our machine-readable price list. No seat minimums, no annual commitment.
Keeping your data secure is of paramount importance to us. We have rigorous technical, operational and contractual safeguards in place to protect customer data.
Visit our Trust Center to request copies of our audited documentation.
All customer data is encrypted at rest and in transit.
Customer Code is architecturally isolated and secured by design. None of our employees can access your source code.
Macroscope does not train models using your source code, and our agreements with model providers ensure they do not train using your IP.
Macroscope builds a graph-based representation of your entire codebase. This approach allows Macroscope to detect subtle bugs that other AI reviewers often miss.
No. Macroscope integrates directly into your existing workflow and is designed to complement your existing tools. Once installed, Macroscope will automatically start summarizing PRs and leaving code review comments directly on GitHub.
Yes. Product managers, engineering managers, customer success teams, and executives use Macroscope to stay informed about what's changing in their product and codebase.
All of them. Macroscope reviews pull requests in every language, so there is no list to check your stack against. Commit and PR summaries, project tracking, and productivity insights work across every language too.
Macroscope is used by startups and enterprise engineering teams alike, from 5-person teams to 100+ engineer orgs.
Teams can get up and running in under 5 minutes. Install the GitHub app, connect Slack (optional), and you're ready! New customers get $100 in usage credit so you can get going right away. It's usage-based, so you only pay for the code you review. Macroscope immediately begins analyzing open PRs and backfilling recent code activity.
Yes. Macroscope installs as a GitHub app and reviews every pull request automatically, posting comments inline the moment a PR opens. Unlike a rules-based bot, it builds a graph of your entire codebase first, so it comments on bugs that matter instead of pattern-matching on style.
Macroscope is usage-based and averages around $0.95 per review. You pay per pull request reviewed, not per developer seat, so your cost tracks how much code you actually ship rather than how many people are on the team. New teams start with $100 in usage credit.
Linters and static analysis match patterns inside a single file. Macroscope builds a graph-based representation of your whole codebase using Abstract Syntax Trees, so it catches bugs that span files, functions and services, which is the class of bug a linter structurally cannot see. It also means far fewer false positives, because it can tell whether a suspicious line is actually reachable.
Yes, and it is the main reason teams adopt it. When Copilot, Cursor or a coding agent writes most of a pull request, the bottleneck moves from writing code to reviewing it. Macroscope reviews AI-written PRs the same way it reviews human ones, and around 40% of pull requests end up auto-approved so engineers only look at what genuinely needs a human.
It depends what you want it to catch. On our benchmark of real production bugs from open source repositories, Macroscope had the highest detection rate of the tools tested, with 4X less noise than the next closest. Run the comparison yourself: most teams evaluate on a week of their own pull requests, which is a better signal than any vendor benchmark including ours.
Both, depending on how you use it. As an AI code review platform it reviews every pull request, writes PR summaries, and gives engineering leaders a view of what is shipping. Most teams start with automated PR review on GitHub and adopt the rest later.
Traditional code quality tools score a snapshot of your repository against fixed rules, which is useful for tracking coverage and style but rarely catches a real bug. AI-powered code review reasons about the change itself, in the context of the codebase around it, and tells you what will break. Teams generally keep both: one for hygiene, one for correctness.
Not yet. Macroscope currently supports GitHub, and GitLab and Bitbucket are on the roadmap. If you are on either one, book a demo and we will let you know when support lands.
Join teams building with Macroscope to catch more bugs and merge PRs faster than ever. Simple usage-based pricing. No seat fees, no surprises.
