Monthly report · October 2026

AI code review, October 2026: 1 open gap — 0 closed, 1 opened.

As the catalog read it in October 2026 · written Nov 1, 2026. This report does not change after it is written. September 2026 →

Download the data (JSON)CSV

Forge’s own counts and the quoted claims with their sources are CC BY 4.0 — cite as Ambera Forge, AI code review, October 2026. Carried market-size figures are their publishers’ and are not in the file.

What was read

7 companies placed; 3 read during October 2026.

Gaps closed and opened

4 themes were raised about two or more of 6 read companies; 1 shares no word with anything a company declares. Against the previous month: 1 gap opened and 0 closed (0 now share a word with a declared capability, 0 no longer raised about two companies). Themes are compared by their words, so a theme the reading reworded counts as one closed and one opened.

Opened · 1
Accuracy and output quality
Now answered in the declared names · 0
—
No longer raised about two companies · 0
—
  • ● Usage limits and capsraised about 4 of 6
  • ◌ Accuracy and output qualityraised about 2 of 6 · no declared match
  • ● Customer supportraised about 2 of 6
  • ● Free tier, trial and paywalled featuresraised about 2 of 6

Who entered

0 companies placed; 6 products sighted by a search and not yet read (Claude Code Review, Cursor Bugbot, Macroscope, Devin Review, Sentry AI Code Review (Seer), Ellipsis).

  • Claude Code Review — sighted Oct 5, 2026 · source
  • Cursor Bugbot — sighted Oct 5, 2026 · source
  • Macroscope — sighted Oct 5, 2026 · source
  • Devin Review — sighted Oct 5, 2026 · source
  • Sentry AI Code Review (Seer) — sighted Oct 5, 2026 · source
  • Ellipsis — sighted Oct 5, 2026 · source

Pricing moves

5 of 7 read companies have a pricing entry on record; 4 pricing changes recorded across 2 companies this month.

  • CodeRabbit [FACT] Oct 19, 2026 · 3 changes this monthCodeRabbit replaced its on-demand 'Security Scan' (with variable usage-based pricing) with 'Deep Scan', now offered as a free trial, with line-by-line codebase review and vulnerability hunting. source
  • Qodo [FACT] Oct 19, 2026 · 1 change this monthQodo removed the 30-user limit on its Pro Team plan. Previously, the plan supported up to 30 users after upgrade; now there are no limits on users, repositories, or reviews, and reviews continue as overage up to the monthly spending cap. source
  • Graphite [FACT] Sep 30, 2026Graphite's pricing consists of Hobby (free, limited AI reviews), Starter at $20/user/month, Team at $40/user/month with unlimited AI reviews and merge queue, and custom Enterprise pricing, with all plans including a 30-day free trial. source
  • Sourcery [FACT] Sep 30, 2026Sourcery's own homepage FAQ states <cite index="2-9,2-10">Pro is $12 per seat per month and Team is $24, billed annually, with open source free.</cite> <cite index="2-14">Enterprise runs Sourcery inside a customer's own infrastructure, with SSO, own LLM keys, a dedicated customer success manager and invoice billing.</cite> source
  • Greptile [FACT] Sep 8, 2026Greptile's pricing structure is a credit-based model: free Starter tier with 50 credits/month for one developer, Pro at $30/seat/month including 50 credits/seat, with 1 credit per standard review, 3 credits per TREX review, and $1 per additional credit beyond the included amount. source

What users raised

20 themes raised by users; the most raised: Usage limits and caps (4 of 6), Accuracy and output quality (2 of 6), Customer support (2 of 6).

  • Usage limits and caps 4/6
  • Accuracy and output quality 2/6
  • Customer support 2/6
  • Free tier, trial and paywalled features 2/6
  • agent PRs receiving little to no human review 1/6
  • Bugs and reliability 1/6
  • Complexity, setup and learning curve 1/6
  • confidence scores perceived as unreliable 1/6
  • Diff-level analysis, not full-repo context 1/6
  • Expensive at scale for large teams 1/6
  • Integrations and API 1/6
  • Limited to changed-file diffs, weak whole-codebase reasoning 1/6
  • loss of code comprehension when 'vibe' reviewing 1/6
  • No automated test generation 1/6
  • Price level 1/6
  • Python-centric, weaker on other languages 1/6
  • real issues buried among noise 1/6
  • Requires cultural/workflow shift to adopt 1/6
  • reviewers get disabled or ignored ('cry wolf') 1/6
  • trusting AI to review AI-generated code 1/6

Funding by quarter

4 rounds recorded across 2 read quarters; sums are floors per currency and per tag, never combined.

  • 2025-Q1not read
  • 2025-Q2not read
  • 2025-Q3not read
  • 2025-Q4not read
  • 2026-Q1not read
  • 2026-Q2not read
  • 2026-Q34 rounds
  • 2026-Q40 rounds

The ledger this month

10 observed claims recorded this month, 2 inferences counted apart, 9 sources that did not answer.

  • PRODUCT · 6
  • PRICING · 4

How big this market is, as its publishers state it

No market-size figure has been recorded for this level yet. Not read is not zero.

Research-house estimates for this sector, carried side by side under each house’s own name. Estimates of one market can differ several-fold; none is averaged, and none is Forge’s.

No publisher is named for this level yet, so there is nothing to read from. Publishers are authored in the taxonomy and arrive with a deploy.

Get this report monthly

Follow AI code review, and read your product against it

Sign in and follow AI code review: the next report arrives by mail on the first Monday of the month — weekly on a paid plan — and your own product is read against this sector every week. Free to start, no card, nothing metered.