Skip to content
effecthub

Context7 vs Greptile

Two fact sheets from our own research, side by side — pricing, platforms, API access and status re-checked by us rather than quoted from the vendors.

The short answer

Cheaper paid plan
Context7 — $10/seat/mo vs $30/seat/mo for Greptile
Free plan
Both have one
Public API
Both have one
Best fit
Context7: Developers using AI editors with frameworks that change often, such as Next.js or Supabase · Greptile: Teams whose bugs come from cross-file coupling rather than local mistakes
Trust score
About even — Context7 86, Greptile 87

From our own records as of each tool's last check. Anything we have not confirmed is left out rather than guessed. How we verify

Context7Documentation service and MCP server that feeds version-specific library docs and code examples into AI coding assistants.GreptileIndexes the whole repo, then reviews pull requests with cross-file context rather than diff-only context.

Side by side

FactContext7Greptile
CategoryMCP Servers & Tool ProtocolsCode Review & Quality
Pricing modelFreemiumFreemium
Starts at$10/seat/mo$30/seat/mo
Public APIYesYes
Trust score86 / 10087 / 100
PlatformsWeb, APIWeb, API
CompanyUpstash, Inc.Greptile
Launched20252023
Last verifiedOct 2, 2026Sep 6, 2026

What our research says

Context7

Context7 fixes a narrow but common annoyance: AI coding assistants quoting last year's API for a fast-moving library. It is quick to wire into Cursor, Claude Code and similar tools, and the free tier is enough for an individual developer. It only helps for libraries that are indexed and documented well, and it adds prompt tokens on every lookup.

Pros

  • Version-specific docs pulled from source rather than model training data
  • Works over MCP or via a CLI and skill, with one-command setup
  • Free tier plus a $10 per-seat Pro plan
  • Open-source code under MIT, built by Upstash

Cons

  • Free plan stops at 1,000 calls a month, with a small daily bonus allowance after that
  • Quality depends on how well each library's docs are indexed and ranked
  • Retrieved snippets consume context window space on every call

Greptile

The full-repo index is the difference that matters - it flags cross-file breakage that diff-only reviewers miss entirely. Billing only for developers who actually got a review that month is a fairer meter than flat per-seat. The 50 credits per seat go quickly on an active team, and $1 per extra review is where the real bill forms.

Pros

  • Indexes the whole codebase, so reviews carry cross-file context
  • Learns from the PR comments your team already writes
  • Seats bill only for developers who actually received a review that period
  • GitHub and GitLab plus an MCP server, an API and a self-hosting option

Cons

  • Credit model means an active repo will exceed the 50 included reviews per seat
  • Overage at $1 per review adds up quietly on a busy month
  • Free tier is capped at a single active developer

Which one fits

Choose Context7 if you need

  • Developers using AI editors with frameworks that change often, such as Next.js or Supabase
  • Teams that want agents to read their own private library docs
  • Anyone tired of hallucinated or deprecated API calls in generated code

Choose Greptile if you need

  • Teams whose bugs come from cross-file coupling rather than local mistakes
  • Enforcing repo-specific conventions through custom rules
  • Orgs that need self-hosted review for code that cannot leave their network

Context7 vs Greptile: the questions people ask

Is Context7 cheaper than Greptile?

On published entry prices, Context7 starts lower — $10/seat/mo against $30/seat/mo for Greptile. Entry price is the lowest paid plan as we last verified it; what each plan includes differs.

Does Context7 or Greptile have a free tier?

Both: Context7 has a free tier, and Greptile has a free tier.

Which has a public API, Context7 or Greptile?

Both ship a public API, so either can be built on; the fact table above shows the platforms each one runs on.

More comparisons

Browse all MCP Servers & Tool Protocols →