# Greptile vs Macroscope

> Greptile: AI code review that checks every pull request against your full codebase context
> Macroscope: AI code review, agent orchestration and engineering status updates for GitHub teams

- Greptile profile: https://finderatlas.com/tools/greptile
- Macroscope profile: https://finderatlas.com/tools/macroscope
- Comparison page: https://finderatlas.com/compare/greptile-vs-macroscope
- Last reviewed: October 2026

## Verdict

Greptile and Macroscope are both Coding AI tools. Both have a free plan or trial. Only Macroscope is available on CLI and Slack App.

### Choose Greptile if

- You want a tool built for automated pull request review on large codebases, enforcing team coding standards, feeding review findings to coding agents.
- Reviews use a graph index of the whole repository, so findings can cover impact beyond the changed lines.
- Plain-English custom rules and learning from past pull request comments adapt reviews to team standards.

### Choose Macroscope if

- You want a tool built for Teams on GitHub that merge a high volume of PRs, including agent-written ones, and want automated review and visibility into shipped work.
- Usage-based pricing with no per-seat fee, so cost follows review volume rather than headcount.
- $100 in free usage for each new workspace and 1,000 free Agent credits per month.

## Pricing

| | Greptile | Macroscope |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Pricing model | Freemium | Freemium |
| Free plan or trial | Yes | Yes |
| Starting price | $0 | $0.05 |

## Features

| Feature | Greptile | Macroscope |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Full-Codebase Context | Yes | Not listed |
| Parallel Review Agents | Yes | Not listed |
| Custom Rules | Yes | Not listed |
| Learning from Comments | Yes | Not listed |
| Review Summaries | Yes | Not listed |
| Fix in Your Agent | Yes | Not listed |
| TREX Runtime Validation | Yes | Not listed |
| MCP Server and Claude Code Plugin | Yes | Not listed |
| Self-Hosting | Yes | Not listed |
| Code Review | Not listed | Yes |
| Fix It For Me | Not listed | Yes |
| Approvability | Not listed | Yes |
| Check Run Agents | Not listed | Yes |
| Status | Not listed | Yes |
| Agent | Not listed | Yes |
| Murmur (beta) | Not listed | Yes |
| Macroscope CLI | Not listed | Yes |

## Platforms

| Platform | Greptile | Macroscope |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Web | Yes | Yes |
| Windows | No | No |
| macOS | No | No |
| iOS | No | No |
| Android | No | No |
| API | Yes | Yes |
| Browser Extension | No | No |
| CLI | No | Yes |
| Slack App | No | Yes |

## Greptile strengths

- Reviews use a graph index of the whole repository, so findings can cover impact beyond the changed lines.
- Plain-English custom rules and learning from past pull request comments adapt reviews to team standards.
- Works with GitHub, GitLab and Bitbucket, and hands findings to Claude Code, Cursor, Codex or Devin.
- Self-hosting and air-gapped deployment are available for regulated organizations.
- Free tier for one developer, free use for qualified open source, and 50% off for early startups.

## Greptile limitations

- Third-party comparisons report more false positives than some competitors; one competitor-run test claims nearly 60% of comments were nitpicks or false positives, which should be read as a rival's claim.
- Pro costs $30 per seat per month and extra credits cost $1 each, with Plus and Apex reviews using 3 and 10 credits.
- Self-hosting, SSO/SAML and GitHub Enterprise support require the custom-priced Enterprise plan.
- Focused on pull request review only; it is not an editor or coding assistant.

## Macroscope strengths

- Usage-based pricing with no per-seat fee, so cost follows review volume rather than headcount.
- $100 in free usage for each new workspace and 1,000 free Agent credits per month.
- Reviews use full-repository context rather than only the diff.
- Covers review, auto-approval, fix PRs and status reporting under one balance.
- Free credits available for qualified non-commercial open source projects.

## Macroscope limitations

- Monthly cost is hard to predict up front because it depends on KB reviewed, commits and agent credits.
- Documented setup is built around GitHub; no GitLab or Bitbucket support is stated.
- Murmur is still in beta.
- Benchmark claims of leading detection rates come from the vendor's own MacroscopeBench, not an independent test.

## FAQ

**Is Greptile better than Macroscope?**

It depends on your workflow. Greptile is built for automated pull request review on large codebases, enforcing team coding standards, feeding review findings to coding agents. Macroscope is built for Teams on GitHub that merge a high volume of PRs, including agent-written ones, and want automated review and visibility into shipped work.

**What are the key feature differences between Greptile and Macroscope?**

Greptile: AI code review that checks every pull request against your full codebase context. Macroscope: AI code review, agent orchestration and engineering status updates for GitHub teams.

**Does Greptile or Macroscope have a free plan?**

Yes, both do. Greptile is freemium and Macroscope is freemium, and each has a free plan or trial.

**Which is cheaper, Greptile or Macroscope?**

Both can be used for free. Paid plans differ in limits and features, so compare the tiers in the pricing table above.