Skip to content
effecthub

Greptile vs Macroscope

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

Entry price
Greptile from $30/seat/mo, Macroscope from $0.5/request — different billing units, so no direct winner
Free plan
Only Greptile (Macroscope has paid plans only)
Public API
Both have one
Best fit
Greptile: Teams whose bugs come from cross-file coupling rather than local mistakes · Macroscope: Small and mid-size engineering teams on GitHub who want bug-focused PR reviews
Platforms
Greptile: Web · Macroscope: Web, Slack app

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

GreptileIndexes the whole repo, then reviews pull requests with cross-file context rather than diff-only context.MacroscopeAI code review for GitHub pull requests, plus commit summaries and an agent that answers questions and opens fix PRs.

Side by side

FactGreptileMacroscope
CategoryCode Review & QualityCode Review & Quality
Pricing modelFreemiumPaid
Starts at$30/seat/mo$0.5/request
Public APIYesYes
Trust score87 / 10086 / 100
PlatformsWeb, APIWeb, Slack app, API
CompanyGreptileMacroscope
Launched20232025
Last verifiedSep 6, 2026Oct 2, 2026

What our research says

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

Macroscope

A fit for engineering teams on GitHub that want deep, usage-priced reviews and plain-language reporting on what shipped, without paying per seat. The cost scales with code volume, so large pull requests get expensive, and it only covers GitHub today.

Pros

  • Usage-based billing with no seat fees and a $100 starting credit per workspace
  • Reviews built on whole-codebase analysis rather than only the diff
  • Review, summaries and a Slack-connected agent share one balance
  • Spend caps per review and monthly limits are built in

Cons

  • Cost rises with the size of reviewed changes
  • GitHub only
  • The public pricing page was not available, so rates live in text files
  • Benchmark claims on the site are the vendor's own

Which one fits

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

Choose Macroscope if you need

  • Small and mid-size engineering teams on GitHub who want bug-focused PR reviews
  • Engineering managers who want automatic commit and sprint summaries
  • Teams that prefer paying for usage instead of per-developer seats

Greptile vs Macroscope: the questions people ask

Is Greptile cheaper than Macroscope?

They charge in different units, so there is no like-for-like answer: Greptile starts at $30/seat/mo, Macroscope at $0.5/request. Entry price is the lowest paid plan as we last verified it.

Does Greptile or Macroscope have a free tier?

Greptile has a free tier; Macroscope has paid plans only.

Which has a public API, Greptile or Macroscope?

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 Code Review & Quality →