The Cubic Alternative for AI Code Review

Looking at Cubic for AI code review? Macroscope is the AI code reviewer you won't turn off. It reviews every pull request, flags the bugs worth fixing, and auto-approves 40% of PRs across customers.

GitHubGet started
Book a demo

Macroscope is usage-based: you pay per review, not per seat. Start with $100 in usage credit.

SOC 2 Type II compliant. Installs on GitHub in under five minutes.

Macroscope comment on a GitHub pull request flagging a Redis race condition and suggesting an atomic MULTI fix

Trusted by engineering teams

Cars24LightfieldPydanticParallelTiltCasaParticle.newsImprintUnitedMastersXMTP
Independent benchmark

Cubic Flags More. Macroscope Is Right More Often.

On Martian's Code Review Bench, Cubic scores higher on recall and F1. It flags more.

Macroscope scores higher on precision. 78.5% of Macroscope's review comments matched a change the developer actually made, against 71.0% for Cubic.

If your team tunes out noisy reviewers, precision is the number to look at.

IndependentMeasured by Martian's open-source Code Review Bench on real pull requests, not by us.

Precision

The share of review comments that matched a change the developer actually made. Higher means fewer false alarms.

Macroscope
78.5%
Cubic
71.0%
Independent benchmark: Martian Code Review Bench, read 7 October 2026. Default view.
Fireworks AI
MacroscopeBench, on the Fireworks index

MacroscopeBench, our code review benchmark, is how Fireworks' Specialized Intelligence Index scores frontier models on code review.

See the indexRead the announcement
Macroscope
A public model leaderboard

We publish a code review leaderboard for frontier models, scored on real bugs from open source repositories.

Explore the leaderboard

Cubic Code Review vs Macroscope, on Your Own PRs

Benchmarks are a starting point. Your code is the real test, so run Macroscope next to Cubic and read the comments side by side.

How to compare

One week, the same pull requests

  • Install the Macroscope GitHub App alongside Cubic. Nothing to remove first.
  • Let both review the same pull requests for a week.
  • Count the comments that point at real bugs, and the ones that are noise.
  • Note how many pull requests could have merged without waiting on a human.
What it costs to find out

Start with $100 in usage credit

Setup takes under five minutes. New workspaces get $100 in usage credit, which covers roughly a hundred reviews, so you decide on real results before you pay.

  • GitHub-native, reviews every new pull request automatically
  • Works in every language, with no list to check your stack against
  • SOC 2 Type II compliant

What You Get on Day One

Install the GitHub App and Macroscope starts on your next pull request. Setup takes under five minutes.

GitHub checks tab showing the Macroscope Approvability Check passing alongside correctness and custom rules checks

Safe PRs get approved for you

Approvability auto-approves low-risk pull requests. Across customers, 40% of PRs are auto-approved, so your team only reviews what needs a human.

A GitHub pull request description written by Macroscope, summarizing the change in plain language

PR descriptions you would sign

Every pull request gets a clear summary of what changed and why, written into the description automatically.

A Slack thread where someone asks @Macroscope for standup notes and Macroscope answers from the codebase

Ask your codebase from Slack

Mention @Macroscope in Slack and get answers grounded in your code, PRs and git history.

People seem to like it...

Nick Molnar
Nick Molnar
CTO Ephemera (building XMTP)
We've used just about every AI-driven PR assistant out there: the signal to noise from Macroscope is the best I've seen. The PR descriptions are better than what we would have written by hand, and when it flags an issue it's almost always a real bug.
Marcel Molina
Marcel Molina
CTO & Cofounder, Particle
Macroscope is like having a distinguished engineer tech lead who's read every diff, understands every project, and can answer any question about your codebase instantly. We can finally focus on shipping instead of process.
Jason Toff
Jason Toff
CEO, Things Inc / Rooms.xyz
Within 24 hours of installing Macroscope, engineers on my team said things like, 'wow, that is scary accurate for a very complex thing,' and, 'much better than my own linear summary or Git commit.'

Cubic Dev Pricing vs Macroscope Pricing

Cubic publishes its own pricing at cubic.dev. Macroscope is usage-based: you pay for the code you review, so your bill tracks how much you ship, not how many people are on the team.

How it is billed

Per KB of diff reviewed

$0.05 per KB of diff reviewed, with a 10 KB minimum per review. The average review costs about $0.95.

What you control

No seat fees, real spend limits

  • No per-seat fees
  • A monthly spend limit plus per-review and per-PR caps
  • Start with $100 in usage credit

What Happens When You Click Get Started

No sales call and nothing to migrate. Macroscope starts on the next pull request you open.

  1. Install the GitHub App

    Choose your repositories. Setup takes under five minutes, and you do not need to remove Cubic first.

  2. Macroscope reviews your next PR

    Comments land inline on the pull request, with a suggested fix. Low-risk PRs can be auto-approved.

  3. Start with $100 in usage credit

    Then $0.05 per KB of diff reviewed, with no seat fees. Set a monthly spend limit whenever you like.

SOC 2 Type II compliant. Read our Trust Center, Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Security

Keeping your data secure is of paramount importance to us. We have rigorous technical, operational and contractual safeguards in place to protect customer data.

SOC II Compliance
SOC 2 Type II Compliant

Visit our Trust Center to request copies of our audited documentation.

Data encryption
Data Encryption

All customer data is encrypted at rest and in transit.

Code isolation and security
Code Isolation

Customer Code is architecturally isolated and secured by design. None of our employees can access your source code.

No training policy
No Training on 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.

Frequently Asked Questions

Macroscope is a GitHub-native AI code review tool that reviews every pull request, flags correctness bugs and suggests the fix. Beyond comments, Approvability auto-approves low-risk pull requests (around 40% across customers), Check Run Agents enforce your own rules written in plain English, and pricing is usage-based at $0.05 per KB reviewed with no per-seat fee.

On the independent Martian Code Review Bench (read 7 October 2026), Cubic scores higher on recall and F1, so it flags more. Macroscope scores higher on precision: 78.5% of its review comments matched a change the developer actually made, against 71.0% for Cubic. The real test is your own code: run both on the same pull requests for a week and compare which comments point at real bugs.

On the independent Martian Code Review Bench (read 7 October 2026), precision was 78.5% for Macroscope, 71.0% for Cubic and 70.2% for CodeRabbit. Recall was 59.5% for Cubic, 55.3% for CodeRabbit and 49.8% for Macroscope. In short: Cubic and CodeRabbit flag more, and more of what Macroscope flags turns out to matter.

Cubic publishes its own pricing at cubic.dev. Macroscope has no per-seat fee: it is usage-based at $0.05 per KB of diff reviewed, with a 10 KB minimum per review, and the average review costs about $0.95. You can set a monthly spend limit plus per-review and per-PR caps, and new workspaces start with $100 in usage credit.

Install the Macroscope GitHub App and it starts reviewing new pull requests immediately. There is no migration step and nothing to port, so you can run both tools on the same pull requests before turning one off. Setup takes under five minutes.

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.

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.

Ready to Get Started?

Join teams building with Macroscope to catch more bugs and merge PRs faster than ever. Simple usage-based pricing. No seat fees, no surprises.

GitHubGet started
Book a demo