Compare
Codzee vs CodeRabbit
On the same 20 public pull requests, Codzee found 190 of 230 planted bugs and CodeRabbit found 140. CodeRabbit is better in places too, and we show where.
Start free trial
14-day free trial · No credit card · Free for solo developers and open source
The benchmark
20 pull requests, 230 planted bugs.
Both tools reviewed the same 20 pull requests on a public repository in October 2026. Every comment is still on GitHub.
Time to review
Codzee about 1 minute
CodeRabbit 2–4 minutes
Average comment length
Codzee367 chars
CodeRabbit1,912 chars
Shorter is quicker to read.
Comments with a code fix
Codzee53%
CodeRabbit25%
Same findings on a re-run
Codzee71%
CodeRabbit56%
The same diff, reviewed twice.
See every number
| Codzee | CodeRabbit | |
|---|---|---|
| Planted bugs found (of 230) | 190 (83%) | 140 (61%) |
| Rounds won (18 scored) | 13 | 1 |
| Bugs only this tool found | 30 | 7 |
| False positives | 0 | 0 |
| Same findings when re-run on the same diff | 71% | 56% |
| Time to review | about 1 minute | 2–4 minutes |
| Inline comments, 20 PRs | 156 | 141 |
| Average comment length | 367 characters | 1,912 characters |
| Comments with a code fix | 53% | 25% |
4 rounds were tied. Codzee posts at most 10 inline comments per pull request and puts the rest in its summary comment, so its inline count understates what it found.
Round by round
Where each tool did better.
Codzee won 13 rounds, CodeRabbit won 1, and 4 were tied. Each round is a public pull request; click one to see every review.
Show as a table
| Round | Bugs planted | Codzee | CodeRabbit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Nightly rate arithmetic | 6 | 4 | 4 |
| 2. Promotional code security | 12 | 9 | 8 |
| 4. Seat inventory concurrency | 6 | 3 | 5 |
| 5. Test quality | 9 | 8 | 8 |
| 6. Invoice and payments, cross-file contract | 13 | 8 | 6 |
| 7. Units crossing a module boundary | 10 | 9 | 9 |
| 8. Python / TypeScript parity | 20 | 19 | 13 |
| 9. Async and state, no written contract | 19 | 18 | 15 |
| 10. Auth, with a description that lies | 18 | 17 | 12 |
| 11. Refactor hiding regressions | 11 | 9 | 5 |
| 12. Hotfix under urgency pressure | 9 | 7 | 5 |
| 13. Pure deletion | 9 | 4 | 2 |
| 14. Major-version library upgrade | 11 | 10 | 7 |
| 15. Large diff, 435 lines | 26 | 25 | 16 |
| 16. Infrastructure as code | 24 | 23 | 14 |
| 17. Sparse defects, 1 per 149 lines | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 18. Correct answers, wrong at scale | 12 | 8 | 5 |
| 20. Finale — the classes nobody found | 12 | 6 | 3 |
Where Codzee did better
- More bugs found: 83% against 61%, a 50-bug margin, and 13 rounds won to 1.
- Bigger pull requests: 19 bugs against 13 in round 8 (#9), and 9 more in each of round 15 (#16) and round 16 (#17).
- More consistent: the same diff reviewed twice gave 71% of the same findings, against 56%.
- Faster: about a minute per review, against 2–4 minutes.
- Shorter comments, more fixes: 367 characters on average against 1,912, and half of them come with a code suggestion you apply in one click.
- Repository security scans for leaked secrets and vulnerable packages, with a PDF report and npm fix pull requests.
Where CodeRabbit did better
- Concurrency bugs: CodeRabbit won round 4 (#5), 5 to 3.
- Clean code: it was the quietest on the round with no planted bugs.
- Every finding inline: Codzee puts findings past its 10-comment limit in the summary.
- Context: it reads the pull request description as a spec, runs code to check some claims, and adds a separate architecture review.
- CWE IDs on security findings in pull request reviews.
- GitLab and free public repos: it works with GitLab as well as GitHub, and reviews public repositories for free. Codzee is GitHub only.
Pricing
What each costs.
| Codzee | CodeRabbit | |
|---|---|---|
| Per developer, billed yearly | $16 (Team), or $20 billed monthly | $24 (Essentials), $48 (Team); Advanced $72 |
| Solo developers | Free | Paid per developer; free on public repositories |
| Free option | Free for solo developers and open source; 14-day Team trial, no card | Free for public repositories |
CodeRabbit prices from its pricing page on October 28, 2026; check their site for current pricing. Codzee Team includes 50 reviewed pull requests per developer a month, shared by the team.
How we tested
Read the method before the numbers.
- We wrote 20 pull requests for a travel booking and billing app with bugs planted on purpose, and saved each answer key before pushing the branch. Round 3 was clean code, to count false positives; round 19 repeated round 18, to see whether each tool finds the same things twice.
- A bug counts as found when a tool names what goes wrong, not just the line. Inline comments, summaries and check output all count.
- Real bugs we didn't plant were not scored, for any tool.
- We make Codzee, and we wrote the pull requests and the answer keys. Tools change quickly, so treat this as one test from October 2026, and run your own: every review is public on GitHub.
Questions
Codzee or CodeRabbit?
Is Codzee a good CodeRabbit alternative?
If you're on GitHub and want fewer missed bugs, shorter comments and quick reviews, yes: Codzee found 50 more planted bugs on the same 20 pull requests. If you need GitLab, CodeRabbit supports it and Codzee doesn't yet.
Which is cheaper?
Codzee Team is $20 per developer a month, or $16 billed yearly, which is less than CodeRabbit Essentials at $24 billed yearly and a third of CodeRabbit Team at $48. Codzee is free for solo developers and open source.
Can I check the results?
Yes. Both tools reviewed the same pull requests on a public GitHub repository, and every comment is still there. We tested in October 2026; tools change, so run your own test too.
Can I use both?
Yes. Both are GitHub Apps, so you can install Codzee next to CodeRabbit on the same repositories and compare them on your own pull requests during the 14-day trial.
The full write-up of one round: 4 AI code reviewers, 1 pull request.
Try both on your own pull requests.
Codzee installs in two clicks and reviews your next pull request within minutes. 14-day free trial.
Start free trial
14-day free trial · No credit card · Free for solo developers and open source