Prove Greptile on one busy repository before it reaches the rest. Exclude bots, keep automatic recharge off, and measure addressed comments and time to merge against a baseline and against the reviewer you already run. Public accounts show trials ending both ways, so agree on exit criteria before the first review.
When you need this
- You are deciding whether to buy Greptile Pro or extend the 14-day trial.
- You already run Copilot code review, Cursor's Bugbot, CodeRabbit, or a reviewer you built, and need a fair comparison.
- Leadership wants evidence from your own repositories before adding a review credit budget.
Evaluation criteria
Scope the pilot
Which repository will show Greptile's value fastest?
Look forPick a busy repository with bugs that cross files or services. Greptile reviews against a graph of the whole repository. Pro supports GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket Cloud, and Cursor Origin. Self-managed hosts and Gitea require Enterprise.
Exclude bots before the first review
Whose pull requests will spend credits?
Look forExcluded authors are not reviewed, so they spend no credits. Greptile excludes dependabot[bot] and renovate[bot] by default. Setting excludeAuthors replaces that list, so keep both bots in it and add your service accounts. Settings, Usage shows credits used by each developer.
Cap spend from day one
What happens when the credits run out?
Look forNew reviews pause until you add credits. Automatic recharge under Settings, Billing buys credits whenever the balance runs low, so leave it off until you know the monthly burn. Public posts from March and April 2026 report unexpected bills after per-review pricing began.
Measure against a baseline
Did the pilot change review outcomes?
Look forMeasure the share of comments that lead to code changes and time to merge. Track review rounds and post-merge defects against the weeks before the pilot. One public repository planned its decision after about 20 gated pull requests, comparing Greptile-only findings with its existing reviewer.
Run a head-to-head
Is Greptile better than the reviewer you already have?
Look forRun both reviewers on the same pull requests. Record valid findings and false positives, plus threads closed without changes. Hacker News accounts describe different outcomes. One company declined to buy Greptile after a several-week trial against Cursor. Another switched to Claude, while a developer chose Greptile over Copilot and Cubic.
Questions to ask vendors
- What share of comments on repositories like ours lead to a code change, and how do you measure it?
- Can the trial run longer than 14 days so it covers a full release cycle?
- How are reviews on each push counted, and can we review only when a pull request opens?
- What do annual or multi-year contracts change about the US$1 credit price?
- Can automatic recharge be capped at a monthly amount?
Red flags
- A pilot with no baseline for time to merge or review rounds.
- Bot and service accounts left in scope, inflating active developers and credits.
- Automatic recharge on from the first day, so one prolific author or agent sets the bill.
- Expansion decided on comment volume or anecdotes when it should rest on addressed comments.
Worth evaluating
Listed in no particular order.
Products in this piece
Sources
- Official documentation
- 6
- Public source
- 6
- Greptile pricing
- Greptile docs: Billing
- Greptile docs: Code providers
- Greptile docs: Graph-based codebase context
- Greptile docs: Controlling nitpickiness
- Greptile docs: Organization settings
- Hacker News: a several-week company trial against Cursor (Jan 26, 2026)
- Hacker News: kaishin on switching from Greptile to Claude (Jan 26, 2026)
- Hacker News: mohsen1 on choosing Greptile over Copilot and Cubic (Jan 26, 2026)
- GitHub: whocards measures Greptile against its code-review skill (Sep 7, 2026)
- GitHub: Viktor Farcic plans a Qodo and Greptile head-to-head (Sep 23, 2026)
- X: Matt Galligan on per-review pricing at 571 pull requests in 30 days (Mar 6, 2026)