CodeRabbit
CodeRabbit, Inc. ·www.coderabbit.ai· As of: 2026-09-08
Work through this tool with an AI
Our verdict
Teams writing code with assistants produce more changes than human review can absorb. The bottleneck moves from writing to approving, and anyone working without a machine pre-check notices it first in the cycle time of their pull requests. No edge comes out of this: a competitor can sign the same subscription on the same day. What makes a difference are the rules the reviewer is given, and the question of who answers for a finding that was missed.
Evidence:Plans, prices, usage-based add-ons, and which of single sign-on, logging, self-hosting and EU environment sit in the enterprise tierOpen sourceData processing addendum: incorporation of the standard contractual clauses, subprocessor rules, return and deletion, and the security annex with the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 statementOpen sourceTerms of service: the training exclusion covering the model providers, incorporation of the data processing addendum, the AI Act clauses and the prohibition on performance evaluationOpen sourcePrivacy policy dated 10 December 2025: server location, storage of vector embeddings to improve reviews including the opt-out, and the Article 27 representativesOpen sourceTrust centre: subprocessors with purpose and country, attestations with standard and version, dated change noticesOpen sourceFunding rounds with date, amount and investorsOpen sourceYear of founding and the vendor's volume figures on customers, pull requests reviewed and code issues foundOpen sourceThe vendor's account of the January 2025 security incident with a timelineOpen sourcePrice and self-hosting of the AI-native comparison product GreptileOpen sourcePricing by lines of code and self-managed operation of the off-the-shelf product SonarQubeOpen source
Who it fits
Solo
suitable
Twenty-four dollars a month billed annually, thirty billed monthly. Public repositories are reviewed free of charge, and billing only covers people who open pull requests themselves.
Mid-market
suitable
Twenty-four to seventy-two dollars per developer per month. One question decides the tier: if a security review is needed on every pull request, a seat costs seventy-two dollars instead of twenty-four, three times as much for the same developers.
Enterprise
suitable with caveats
Conditional, and the condition is the plan. Single sign-on, role-based permissions, logging, self-hosting and running in an EU environment all sit in the enterprise tier, which carries no list price. Anyone who needs those five points to clear procurement negotiates a contract rather than ordering a subscription.
Buy, switch or build
Off-the-shelf
SonarQube from Sonar
Static analysis is the grown answer to the same question and bills by lines of code, in the cloud from thirty-four dollars a month for a hundred thousand lines, plus SonarQube Server for running it in your own data centre. Large companies stay with it for three reasons: in-house operation is available without negotiation, billing by lines of code decouples cost from headcount, and the same code produces the same finding on every run. That repeatability is what evidentiary obligations hang on. What it lacks is any grasp of intent: a rule recognises a pattern, not a flaw in the reasoning of a process.
AI-native
Greptile and the other AI-native reviewers
Greptile charges thirty dollars per seat per month, placing it between the Essentials and Team tiers; self-hosting there is likewise reserved for the enterprise plan. The price gap inside this group is small, and the choice turns on other things: how many repositories are looked at together, and whether custom checks apply before merging. What the whole group gives up is repeatability. Two runs over the same code can differ, and the rule base belongs to the vendor, who can change it without notice.
Build it yourself
Your own review step in the build chain
Feasible with Claude Code as the build tool in the pipeline, LiteLLM as the model gateway, Langfuse for logging model calls and GitHub or GitLab as the anchor for the comments. Reckoning with ten to fifteen person-days for a first dependable version and half a day a month for recalibration, at a daily rate of 800 euros the build comes out above a Team subscription for ten developers in the first year and does not close the gap in the second either. It pays off where the review rules come from inside the house and no code may leave the network. Failure rarely comes from the technology and usually from calibration: a reviewer that reports too much gets clicked away within two weeks, and the work of matching its criteria against real human judgements never ends.
Our advice
- Solo: Take it. Free on public repositories, otherwise the cheapest route to a second pair of eyes.
- Mid-market: Take it and settle in the same move who signs off on a finding and what never gets merged without human approval. Switch off the storage of code content if it is unwanted.
- Enterprise: Negotiate before procurement on the enterprise plan: EU environment, the scope and retention of logging, and the scope of the attestations, all in writing. Involve the works council in parallel, because the tool collects metrics per developer.
Who is behind it
Staying power: Funded
CodeRabbit started in 2023 and is therefore too young for the established classification. Audited accounts are not available, profitability is not documented, and every customer and volume figure comes from the company itself. Three consecutive rounds within two years support the funded classification, most recently USD 143m in August 2026 at a valuation of USD 1.5bn. That valuation is the price agreed in a private round, not a market quote. The round is a primary transaction: the company names international expansion plus research and product development as the use of proceeds, so the money goes into the company. Ongoing operation is documented independently of that, because the subprocessor list in the trust centre carries dated change notices and the vendor has publicly worked through a January 2025 security incident with a timeline.
- Series C: USD 143m at a USD 1.5bn valuation: USD 143m, co-led by Atomico and Smash Capital, with BMW i Ventures, Datadog, Hirtle Callaghan, SineWave Ventures and Scenic Management as new investors and CRV, Scale Venture Partners, Flex Capital, Pelion Venture Partners, Harmony Partners and Engineering Capital as existing ones. Valuation USD 1.5bn. The figures come from the company announcement.Funding rounds with date, amount and investorsOpen source · As of 2026-08-12
- Series B: USD 60m: USD 60m, eleven months before the Series C. Taken together the two rounds show a shortening gap between financings, which points to capital requirements as much as to demand for shares. From the outside there is no way to decide which of the two readings holds.Funding rounds with date, amount and investorsOpen source · As of 2025-09-16
- Founded 2023, volume figures stated by the vendor: Founded in 2023. In its press kit the vendor states more than 17,000 customers, more than 2m pull requests reviewed per week and more than 75m code issues found. All three figures are company statements with no disclosed methodology and no external audit.Year of founding and the vendor's volume figures on customers, pull requests reviewed and code issues foundOpen source · As of 2026-09-08
- January 2025 security incident, publicly addressed: On 24 January 2025 researchers from Kudelski Security reported through the vendor's disclosure programme that the RuboCop linter was running outside the sandboxed environment. By the vendor's account the service was switched off within one hour, all affected credentials were rotated within three hours and the fix shipped within twelve hours; no access to customer data was identified. The chief executive's statement is dated 19 August 2025, around seven months after the report. The incident touched exactly the product's core exposure, namely running someone else's code.The vendor's account of the January 2025 security incident with a timelineOpen source · As of 2025-08-19
- Subprocessor change notices in practice: The trust centre carries dated change notices for the subprocessor list, most recently on 4 August 2026 with three additions and on 29 April 2026 with twelve additions and two removals. The thirty-day advance notice promised in the data processing addendum is therefore demonstrably in operation rather than a mere contractual formula. The two notices give different contact addresses for objections.Trust centre: subprocessors with purpose and country, attestations with standard and version, dated change noticesOpen source · As of 2026-08-04
Cost of leaving: Low
The findings sit as comments in the pull requests of your own version control and stay there when the subscription ends. What is left behind is the setup work: learned preferences, custom pre-merge checks and the history of security findings do not travel to the next vendor. A switch therefore costs days of configuration, and no data has to be recovered for it.
Regulation and data
| Data processing agreementdocumented, no condition attached: Auftragsverarbeitungsvertrag öffentlich abrufbar und ohne weitere Bedingung Bestandteil des Vertrags; oder er entfällt nachvollziehbar begründet, weil kein Anbieter Kundendaten verarbeitet.documented, tied to a condition: Vertrag existiert, ist aber an einen Tarif gebunden, nur nach Anfrage einsehbar oder allein in den Nutzungsbedingungen geregelt statt als eigenes Dokument.documented, but unfavourable: Kein Auftragsverarbeitungsvertrag im üblichen Sinn: entweder weil der Anbieter für das Kerngeschäft eigenständig Verantwortlicher ist und stattdessen eine andere Konstruktion gilt, oder weil öffentlich offen bleibt, ob überhaupt einer angeboten wird.open on a point that decides usability: Weder ein Vertrag noch ein dokumentierter Weg zu einem Vertrag; der Einkauf hätte nichts, worauf er sich stützen kann. | documented, no condition attachedyes, publicly available and automatically part of the contract via the terms of serviceData processing addendum: incorporation of the standard contractual clauses, subprocessor rules, return and deletion, and the security annex with the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 statementOpen sourceClause 7.4 of the terms of service expressly incorporates the data processing addendum into the agreement, so no separate signature is required for it to apply. The vendor provides a signed version on request. The addendum covers all plans.As of 2026-09-08 |
|---|---|
| Storage locationdocumented, no condition attached: EU-Speicherort ohne Zusatzkosten und ohne Tarifbindung, oder der Ort ist vollständig selbst bestimmbar, weil das Werkzeug im eigenen Betrieb läuft.documented, tied to a condition: EU-Speicherort möglich, aber an einen Tarif, einen gesondert zu aktivierenden Zusatz oder einen Umzug in eine getrennte Umgebung gebunden; oder die EU-Region ist nicht die Voreinstellung.documented, but unfavourable: Kein EU-Speicherort, der Ort ist aber eindeutig benannt, sodass die Folgen bewertbar sind.open on a point that decides usability: Der Speicherort ist öffentlich nicht benannt oder vom Kunden nicht steuerbar, sodass sich die Verarbeitung nicht verorten lässt. | documented, tied to a conditionUS by default; operation in an EU environment is offered on the enterprise plan onlyPrivacy policy dated 10 December 2025: server location, storage of vector embeddings to improve reviews including the opt-out, and the Article 27 representativesOpen sourceThe privacy policy dated 10 December 2025 places the servers in the United States. The pricing page lists EU SaaS deployment in the enterprise tier only. The processing chain matches: of thirty listed subprocessors, twenty-nine sit in the US, and the only one based in Europe handles documentation review. An EU location is therefore reachable, but it is neither the default nor available without negotiating a contract.As of 2026-09-08 |
| Subprocessorsdocumented, no condition attached: Vollständige öffentliche Liste der Unterauftragnehmer mit Zweck und Land; oder es gibt keine, weil das Werkzeug im eigenen Betrieb läuft.documented, tied to a condition: Liste existiert und ist benannt, aber nur nach Anfrage oder nach Zugang zu einem Vertrauensportal einsehbar, oder sie nennt Zweck und Land nicht vollständig.documented, but unfavourable: Keine geführte Liste; namentlich stehen nur einzelne Dienste in der Datenschutzerklärung, überwiegend solche der eigenen Website.open on a point that decides usability: Weder eine Liste noch eine Nennung der Verarbeiter des Produkts, und kein dokumentierter Weg, sie zu erfahren. | documented, no condition attachedyes, complete public list with purpose and country, readable without an access requestTrust centre: subprocessors with purpose and country, attestations with standard and version, dated change noticesOpen sourceAnnex III of the data processing addendum points to the trust centre, and the list is readable there without a login and without a non-disclosure agreement. As of the retrieval date it carries thirty entries with purpose and country, among them Anthropic and OpenAI for the models, Google Cloud, Cloudflare and Vercel for operations, and LanceDB as the vector database. Twenty-nine entries name the US, one names Germany. Anyone reading only the vendor's privacy policy will not find this chain.As of 2026-09-08 |
| Third-country transferdocumented, no condition attached: Keine Übermittlung in ein Drittland, oder die Übermittlung findet statt und die Grundlage ist benannt und im Vertrag verankert, etwa Standardvertragsklauseln, Angemessenheitsbeschluss oder EU-US-Datenschutzrahmen.documented, tied to a condition: Übermittlung findet statt, eine Grundlage ist genannt, aber ohne Zuordnung, welcher Empfänger auf welcher Grundlage arbeitet.documented, but unfavourable: Übermittlung findet statt und die eigenen Unterlagen widersprechen sich, oder die genannte Grundlage bezieht sich erkennbar nur auf einen Randbereich wie die Marketing-Website.open on a point that decides usability: Übermittlung findet erkennbar statt und eine Grundlage wird nirgends genannt. | documented, no condition attachedyes, transfer to the US; covered by the EU standard contractual clauses inside the data processing addendumData processing addendum: incorporation of the standard contractual clauses, subprocessor rules, return and deletion, and the security annex with the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 statementOpen sourceClause 8.2 incorporates the standard contractual clauses and assigns modules one, two and three to the respective roles; the addendum's annexes complete the annexes of the clauses. For transfers out of the United Kingdom, either the data privacy framework or the same clauses apply. A law firm in Bonn is named as representative under Article 27 of the General Data Protection Regulation, and a company in Peterborough for the United Kingdom. The transfer clause reaches further than the country list: it permits processing anywhere the vendor or its subprocessors operate.As of 2026-09-08 |
| Training on customer datadocumented, no condition attached: Vertraglich oder in der Datenschutzerklärung ausdrücklich ausgeschlossen, mit Erstreckung auf die eingesetzten Modellanbieter; oder es gibt keine Datenübertragung an einen Anbieter.documented, tied to a condition: Ausschluss ab einem bestimmten Tarif, oder die Zusage steht nur auf einer Dokumentationsseite statt im Vertrag, oder die Frage stellt sich für das Werkzeug sachlich kaum und der Anbieter schweigt dazu.documented, but unfavourable: Nutzung ist die Voreinstellung und nur ein Widerspruch beendet sie; oder der Anbieter trainiert eigene Modelle auf bereinigten Kundendaten.open on a point that decides usability: Keine Aussage, obwohl das Werkzeug KI-Funktionen auf Kundeninhalten betreibt. | documented, but unfavourablemodel training contractually excluded, including for the model providers; storage of code content as vectors runs by default with a right to opt outPrivacy policy dated 10 December 2025: server location, storage of vector embeddings to improve reviews including the opt-out, and the Article 27 representativesOpen sourceClause 3.3 of the terms of service commits that neither the vendor nor the model providers it uses will train models on customer code, and names OpenAI and Anthropic under a zero data retention arrangement; the corresponding evidence sits in the trust centre. The privacy policy describes a second use alongside this: the vendor stores data to improve reviews, mainly as vector embeddings, and that storage is switched on until the customer opts out. The contract therefore governs training while the privacy policy governs reuse, and the two statements live in different documents. Anyone wanting to keep code out entirely has to switch the storage off.As of 2026-09-08 |
| Retention and deletiondocumented, no condition attached: Löschfristen nach Vertragsende beziffert und die Löschung oder Rückgabe zugesagt; oder die Fristen bestimmt der Betreiber selbst, weil das Werkzeug im eigenen Betrieb läuft.documented, tied to a condition: Löschung ist zugesagt, die Fristen sind aber nur teilweise beziffert, oder Sicherungskopien sind ausdrücklich ausgenommen.documented, but unfavourable: Nur der Grundsatz der Erforderlichkeit ohne jede Frist nach Vertragsende, oder Fristen sind allein für Randbereiche wie Website-Protokolle genannt.open on a point that decides usability: Keine Aussage zu Aufbewahrung und Löschung. | documented, tied to a conditionreturn or deletion after contract end on request; backups expressly excluded, no period statedData processing addendum: incorporation of the standard contractual clauses, subprocessor rules, return and deletion, and the security annex with the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 statementOpen sourceClause 6 of the data processing addendum promises return or deletion, but ties it to a customer request. Data in backup systems is expressly excluded and removed according to the vendor's deletion practices, with no period stated. A deletion certificate likewise reaches the customer only on request. The section of the privacy policy whose heading covers retention and proprietary code puts figures only against personal data.As of 2026-09-08 |
| Certificationsdocumented, no condition attached: Mehrere anerkannte Nachweise, benannt mit Norm, Fassung und Geltungsbereich, und bezogen auf den Anbieter selbst.documented, tied to a condition: Ein anerkannter Nachweis für den Anbieter belegt, der Bericht aber nur auf Anfrage, oder der Nachweis hängt an einem Tarif, oder der Geltungsbereich bleibt teilweise offen.documented, but unfavourable: Nur pauschale Nennung ohne Norm-Fassung und Geltungsbereich, oder bloße Selbstauskunft, oder die Nachweise gehören dem Infrastrukturanbieter statt dem Anbieter, oder der Prüfzeitraum ist erkennbar veraltet, oder die eigenen Angaben widersprechen sich.open on a point that decides usability: Kein Nachweis genannt und keine Sicherheits- oder Vertrauensseite vorhanden. | documented, tied to a conditionSOC 2 Type II, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, SOC 3, a GDPR audit report and a penetration test; the reports themselves only after an access requesttrust.coderabbit.aiOpen sourceThe trust centre lists the attestations with standard and version, the reports themselves sit behind an access request, and the scope stays undisclosed. The annex to the data processing addendum is worded more cautiously than the portal: it states that the vendor operates a management system that complies with the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022. A compliance statement and a certification are two different things, and without sight of the report there is no way to settle which wording matches the facts.As of 2026-09-08 |
| EU AI Act, Article 50documented, no condition attached: Der Anbieter macht eine belegte Aussage, die die eigene Pflicht trägt, etwa Modelldokumentation und Zertifizierung nach ISO/IEC 42001; oder das Werkzeug enthält nachvollziehbar begründet kein KI-System im Sinne der Verordnung.documented, tied to a condition: Der Anbieter äußert sich zur Verordnung oder ordnet die eigene Funktion ein, eine benannte Zusage zu den Transparenzpflichten aus Artikel 50 fehlt aber; oder das Werkzeug enthält kein KI-System, das gegenüber Menschen auftritt, und der Anbieter schweigt.documented, but unfavourable: Das Produkt enthält KI-Funktionen, der Anbieter schweigt dazu oder trägt ein Selbstetikett ohne Nachweis; die Kennzeichnung ist vom Betreiber aber selbst setzbar.open on a point that decides usability: KI spricht im Produkt unmittelbar mit Endkunden und der Anbieter sagt zu Artikel 50 nichts; die Kennzeichnung lässt sich ohne Zusage des Anbieters nicht sicher setzen. | documented, tied to a conditionthe vendor names the regulation in its contracts and shifts compliance to the customer; a statement about its own duties is missingTerms of service: the training exclusion covering the model providers, incorporation of the data processing addendum, the AI Act clauses and the prohibition on performance evaluationOpen sourceClause 4.2 of the terms of service prohibits uses matching the practices banned under Article 5; the partner version additionally prohibits deployment in high-risk systems within the meaning of the regulation. The vendor says nothing about its own role or about the transparency duties in Article 50. For German employers a different clause in the same section matters more: the vendor expressly prohibits using the tool or its analytics for decisions about employment relationships, for allocating tasks by personal characteristics, or for evaluating the performance of employees. Turning the tool's metrics into a developer appraisal therefore breaches the contract, before any question of works council codetermination even arises.As of 2026-09-08 |
| Audit loggingdocumented, no condition attached: Nachvollziehbares Protokoll über Zugriffe und Änderungen in allen Tarifen enthalten, mit benannter Frist und Ausleitung in eigene Systeme; oder die Nachvollziehbarkeit liegt vollständig in eigener Hand, weil das Werkzeug im eigenen Betrieb läuft.documented, tied to a condition: Protokoll vorhanden, aber an einen höheren Tarif oder einen kostenpflichtigen Zusatz gebunden, oder die Ausleitung fehlt in den unteren Stufen; Reichweite und Frist sind benannt.documented, but unfavourable: Protokolle sind nur anbieterseitig beschrieben, oder Reichweite und Frist bleiben offen, sodass sich Nachweispflichten nicht planen lassen.open on a point that decides usability: Öffentlich nicht belegt, ob der Kunde überhaupt ein auswertbares Protokoll erhält. | documented, but unfavourableenterprise plan only; scope, retention period and export are not publicly statedPlans, prices, usage-based add-ons, and which of single sign-on, logging, self-hosting and EU environment sit in the enterprise tierOpen sourceThe pricing page lists logging together with role-based permissions and single sign-on in the enterprise tier and names it in none of the three list-price tiers. What the log captures, how long it is kept and whether it can be exported into your own systems appears nowhere in the public documents. Anyone who has to plan for evidentiary obligations cannot do so from the published information and depends on the contract negotiation.As of 2026-09-08 |
What it really costs
Entry price
Essentials at twenty-four dollars per developer per month billed annually, thirty billed monthly. Team at forty-eight or sixty, Advanced at seventy-two billed annually. The enterprise plan carries no list price. Public repositories are reviewed free of charge, and billing only covers people who open pull requests.Plans, prices, usage-based add-ons, and which of single sign-on, logging, self-hosting and EU environment sit in the enterprise tierOpen source
As of 2026-09-08
What gets expensive
In two places. Every plan includes a number of reviews per developer per hour; beyond that each reviewed file costs twenty-five cents, added to the monthly invoice. The cloud and Slack agents bill at forty cents per agent minute. Both items can be capped with a monthly spending limit, and without that cap the invoice grows with the number of changes rather than the number of seats.
What it displaces
- A second developer's first pass over routine changes
- Separately procured subscriptions for linters and static security scanning in smaller teams
Interfaces
- GitHub and GitLab
- Jira and Linear
- Command line and editor
- Tool integration via MCP
- Slack as a paid add-on
Matching methods
- DORA Delivery DiagnosticThe diagnosis measures throughput and stability as a pair, and a machine reviewer acts exactly there: it shortens the lead time of a change, while the change failure rate shows whether the gained tempo is real or merely displaced.
- Calibrated Evaluation Loop for AI Outputs (Criteria Drift)An automatic reviewer is only worth having once its criteria are matched against human judgements, and the finding list from the first few weeks is precisely the material that reveals which rules hold up with the team and which get clicked away as noise.
- Leading AI Agents as Team MembersThe method requires a written role for every agent and a human who signs off, and a reviewer that applies fixes with one click is the point where that sign-off is either named or quietly passes to the agent.
- DORA AI Capabilities Model (Seven AI Capabilities)A clear stance on AI ranks high among the seven capabilities, and the decision about storing code content and about the place of processing forces a company to put that stance in writing for the first time.
Alternatives
Sources
- 1.Plans, prices, usage-based add-ons, and which of single sign-on, logging, self-hosting and EU environment sit in the enterprise tier (opens in a new tab)coderabbit.ai/pricing · As of 2026-09-08
- 2.Data processing addendum: incorporation of the standard contractual clauses, subprocessor rules, return and deletion, and the security annex with the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 statement (opens in a new tab)coderabbit.ai/legal/dpa · As of 2026-09-08
- 3.Terms of service: the training exclusion covering the model providers, incorporation of the data processing addendum, the AI Act clauses and the prohibition on performance evaluation (opens in a new tab)coderabbit.ai/legal/terms-of-service · As of 2026-09-08
- 4.Privacy policy dated 10 December 2025: server location, storage of vector embeddings to improve reviews including the opt-out, and the Article 27 representatives (opens in a new tab)coderabbit.ai/privacy-policy · As of 2026-09-08
- 5.Trust centre: subprocessors with purpose and country, attestations with standard and version, dated change notices (opens in a new tab)trust.coderabbit.ai/subprocessors · As of 2026-09-08
- 6.Funding rounds with date, amount and investors (opens in a new tab)coderabbit.ai/newsroom · As of 2026-08-12
- 7.Year of founding and the vendor's volume figures on customers, pull requests reviewed and code issues found (opens in a new tab)coderabbit.ai/press-kit · As of 2026-09-08
- 8.The vendor's account of the January 2025 security incident with a timeline (opens in a new tab)coderabbit.ai/… · As of 2025-08-19
- 9.Price and self-hosting of the AI-native comparison product Greptile (opens in a new tab)greptile.com/pricing · As of 2026-09-08
- 10.Pricing by lines of code and self-managed operation of the off-the-shelf product SonarQube (opens in a new tab)sonarsource.com/plans-and-pricing · As of 2026-09-08
- 11.trust.coderabbit.ai (opens in a new tab)As of 2026-09-08
Last reviewed: 2026-09-08 by Dr. Oliver Gausmann, Convios GmbH
Details out of date? Let us know.
From tool to decision
The offer that fits this tool
A tool profile tells you what the tool does and what it means for compliance. Whether it gets priority in your company is a management decision, and it takes one working day: the executive AI workshop ranks your initiatives by business value, risk, data readiness and ownership.