Skip to content
effecthub

Driver 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

Free plan
Greptile has one; Driver prices on request
Public API
Both have one
Higher Trust score
Driver — 90 vs 85 for Greptile
Best fit
Driver: engineering teams running Claude Code, Cursor, or similar agents against large codebases · Greptile: Teams whose bugs come from cross-file coupling rather than local mistakes
Status
Both up at our last check (Oct 15, 2026)

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

DriverCompiles a codebase into architecture docs, symbol tables, and dependency maps that AI coding agents query over MCP or an API.GreptileIndexes the whole repo, then reviews pull requests with cross-file context rather than diff-only context.

Side by side

FactDriverGreptile
CategoryMCP Servers & Tool ProtocolsCode Review & Quality
Pricing modelContactFreemium
Starts at—$30/seat/mo
Public APIYesYes
Trust score90 / 10085 / 100
PlatformsWeb, APIWeb, API
CompanyDriver AI, Inc.Tabnam, Inc.
Launched—2023
Last verifiedOct 15, 2026Oct 15, 2026

What our research says

Driver

Driver is infrastructure for AI coding agents rather than a tool developers use directly: it pre-compiles a codebase into documentation and context an agent can query over MCP or API. That can make agents faster and more accurate on large codebases, but there's no visible self-serve price, and the entry tier already assumes millions of lines of code per year.

Pros

  • exposes codebase context through an MCP server that plugs into Claude Code and Cursor
  • offers a REST API with machine-to-machine authentication for custom integrations
  • tracks context across multiple repositories and git branches
  • works across any programming language rather than a fixed list

Cons

  • no published self-serve pricing — the entry tier requires a sales conversation
  • LLM token usage is billed separately from the platform fee, so total cost is unpredictable upfront

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 Driver if you need

  • engineering teams running Claude Code, Cursor, or similar agents against large codebases
  • support and QA teams that need programmatic answers about a codebase
  • organizations needing multi-repo, multi-branch context in one place

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

Driver vs Greptile: the questions people ask

Is Driver cheaper than Greptile?

Greptile starts at $30/seat/mo; Driver prices on request, so a quote is the only way to compare.

Does Driver or Greptile have a free tier?

Greptile has a free tier; Driver prices on request.

Which has a public API, Driver 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 →