GILD verdict
Start with Copilot code review if your code is on GitHub, since Copilot Business and Enterprise seats include it.
Business costs US$19 and Enterprise US$39 per seat, and reviews bill AI credits. Choose Greptile when code spans several hosts, review has to run in your own infrastructure, or you want a reviewer independent of your coding assistant. Either way, pilot on one busy repository and compare the share of comments that lead to changes and the spend per pull request.
Greptile is the more precise reviewer on independent tests, which matters when noise is the complaint. The New Stack's October 6, 2026 read of Martian's benchmark ranked Greptile second and Copilot fourth. Both review with context from the whole repository and suggest fixes a developer can apply. Copilot code review is billed in GitHub AI Credits and centers on GitHub.
Choosing between Greptile and GitHub Copilot
Choose Greptile if
- Code lives on GitLab, Bitbucket, Gitea, or self-managed hosts as well as GitHub.
- Review has to run inside your own infrastructure, including air-gapped environments.
- You want review independent of your coding assistant, with fixes sent to Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, or Devin.
Choose GitHub Copilot if
- Code review comes inside the Copilot Business or Enterprise seat, billed in AI credits at US$0.01 each.
- Code is on GitHub and engineers want reviews from GitHub.com, the GitHub CLI, GitHub Mobile, or their IDE.
- You want review instructions in the same copilot-instructions.md and AGENTS.md files your coding agents read.
Side by side
| Dimension | Greptile | GitHub Copilot |
|---|---|---|
| Independent accuracyMartian scores the share of suggestions developers act on and the share of later fixes the reviewer flagged. GitHub's own ReviewBench ranks Copilot first, from runs GitHub's team made itself. | Martian online benchmark: second on Oct 6, 2026; 76.2% of suggestions acted on in Greptile's Jul 30, 2026 capture1213 | Martian online benchmark: fourth at 60.9% F1 on Oct 6, 2026. Developers resolved 72.9% of its comments across 342 Python repositories (arXiv, Jul 2026)1214 |
| Where it reviews | GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket Cloud, and Cursor Origin (beta) on every plan; GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab Self-Managed, Bitbucket Data Center, and Gitea on Enterprise | GitHub.com pull requests, the GitHub CLI, GitHub Mobile, VS Code, Visual Studio, Xcode, and JetBrains IDEs; Azure DevOps in public preview |
| Team priceList prices in US dollars. Greptile bills only the reviews that complete; Copilot bills every granted seat and covers far more than review. | Pro: no seat fee; prepaid credits at US$1 each, shared across the organization | Copilot Business: US$19 per granted seat per month; Copilot Enterprise: US$39 |
| Cost per review | 1, 3, or 10 credits by tier at US$1 per credit | AI credits at US$0.01 each; GitHub estimates US$0.05 to US$1 per review at Lite effort and US$0.25 to US$5 at Balanced, plus Actions minutes |
| Hosting | Greptile Cloud (SOC 2 Type II) or self-hosted on Docker Compose or Kubernetes, air-gapped included | GitHub's service; agentic review runs on GitHub Actions, on GitHub-hosted runners by default or self-hosted runners |
| Approvals | Comments by default; auto-approve, in beta, approves pull requests with a clean 5/5 review | Reviews do not count toward required approvals by default; opt-in Copilot approvals, in public preview, can satisfy them |
| Review instructions | .greptile/ folders, greptile.json, and dashboard rules, plus learning from reactions and replies | .github/copilot-instructions.md, path-specific instructions files, and AGENTS.md |
What practitioners report, side by side
Each product's figures come from its own practitioners, for the group you pick.
Overall signal
Leaders and teams rate Greptile +40, 25 points above GitHub Copilot at +15. Most of the gap is in praise, with 11 of Greptile's 20 sources positive against 7 of GitHub Copilot's 20. Greptile has 3 negative and GitHub Copilot 4.
The score is how far positive sources lead negative ones, per 100 sources from leaders and teams that take a side. Each author behind these scores wrote one of them, so each source is one vote.
A lead of a fifth of the sources reads positive and a lead of half strong positive, with the same lines below zero. The dots run positive, mixed, negative. Run a pilot on live pull requests to measure which comments engineers act on and which they dismiss.
Footprint on the Agentic Software Development stack
They differ on four of 12 layers. GitHub Copilot owns two that Greptile does not. Coverage is each product's placement on this stack, as its product page shows it. Core is a job the product owns; Supports and Touches are jobs it helps with. Coverage says nothing about how well a product does them.
| Layer | Greptile | GitHub Copilot |
|---|---|---|
| Plan | ||
| Work planning | Touches | Supports |
| Build | ||
| Coding | Touches | Core |
| Agent runtime | Touches | Core |
| Validate | ||
| Debugging | Touches | Supports |
The 8 layers where they match
| Layer | Greptile | GitHub Copilot |
|---|---|---|
| Build | ||
| Codebase context | Supports | Supports |
| Tool execution | Supports | Supports |
| Validate | ||
| Testing | Supports | Supports |
| Code review | Core | Core |
| Application security | Supports | Supports |
| Ship | ||
| Source control | Supports | Supports |
| CI/CD | Touches | Touches |
| Operate | ||
| Observability | Touches | Touches |
What practitioners praise
Among leaders and teams, Inline Completions and Enterprise Administration reach 5 sources from 3 authors only for GitHub Copilot, at 5 of 6 and 2 of 6. Greptile needs a pilot on the same pull requests before you choose on either. Bug Detection reaches 5 sources from 3 authors only for Greptile, at 8 of 8. GitHub Copilot needs a pilot on the same pull requests before you choose on it.
| Praised for | Greptile | GitHub Copilot |
|---|---|---|
| Bug Detection | 8 of 8 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Inline Completions | Not a theme in its sources | 5 of 6 |
| Enterprise Administration | Not a theme in its sources | 2 of 6 |
Each count is the sources that praise a theme, or raise it as a concern, out of those that discuss it. A row pairs the two products when both carry a theme under the same or an equivalent name.
A count ending in "so far" has under 5 sources from 3 authors among leaders and teams. "Not a theme in its sources" means GILD found no theme of that name in that product's sources.
What practitioners raise as concerns
Among leaders and teams, GitHub Copilot alone has five concern themes that reach 5 sources from 3 authors. Requires Strong Review and Measuring Impact lead, at 4 of 6 and 4 of 12.
| Raised as a concern | Greptile | GitHub Copilot |
|---|---|---|
| Requires Strong Review | Not a theme in its sources | 4 of 6 |
| Measuring Impact | Not a theme in its sources | 4 of 12 |
| Quality Against Alternatives | Not a theme in its sources | 3 of 5 |
| Usage / Cost | Not a theme in its sources | 3 of 6 |
| Data, IP & Security | Not a theme in its sources | 2 of 5 |
14 sources
- Greptile pricing
- Greptile docs: Billing
- Greptile docs: Review tiers
- Greptile docs: Code providers
- Greptile docs: Deployment options
- Greptile docs: Auto-approve PRs
- Greptile docs: Fix with your Agent
- Greptile docs: Controlling nitpickiness
- GitHub Docs: About Copilot code review
- GitHub Docs: Plans for GitHub Copilot
- GitHub Copilot plans
- The New Stack: Copilot tops GitHub's own AI code review benchmark. An independent one tells a different story. (Oct 6, 2026)
- Greptile: Greptile Ranks #1 on Martian's AI Code Review Benchmark (Jul 30, 2026)
- arXiv: Cynthia et al., Understanding Developer Responses to Agent-Generated Code Review Comments (Jul 24, 2026)