cubicvsQodo
Generated from the two spec rows. Green marks the better value where a spec has a clear direction. Everything else is just different.
cubic
cubic · Code review agent
#88MCP
Panel
6.04 spec wins
- Reliability
- 5.8
- Usefulness
- 6.8
- Cost
- 5.5
- Longevity
- 6.0
“The free tier is twenty pull request reviews a month, which is either a whole team or one Dependabot.”
Qodo
Qodo · Code review agent
#122MCP
Panel
5.81 spec wins
- Reliability
- 6.0
- Usefulness
- 6.0
- Cost
- 5.2
- Longevity
- 6.2
“Renamed from CodiumAI, moved the open-source part to another organization, and kept the governance dashboard.”
Spec by spec
| Spec | cubic | Qodo |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | ||
| Category | Code review agent | Code review agent |
| Runs | cloud, sandbox | cloud, local |
| Platforms | web, macos, linux, windows | macos, linux, windows, web |
| Context window | not documented | not documented |
| Protocols | ||
| MCP client | No | No |
| MCP server | Yes | Yes |
| Capabilities | ||
| Runs terminal commands | No | No |
| Multi-file edits | Yes | No |
| Git operations | Yes | Yes |
| Browser control | No | NoQodo works over git provider APIs and repository context only, with no browser tool or browser automation integration. |
| Sandboxed execution | Yes | No |
| Multi-agent orchestration | Yes | No |
| Headless / CI mode | Yes | Yes |
| Models | ||
| Backbone | OpenAI, Anthropic, Claude Code | |
| Bring your own model | No | YesEnterprise only: BYOK routes your own LLM keys through Qodo, and single-tenant, on-prem and air-gapped deployments let you host the platform, but no custom model endpoint is documented. |
| Local models | No | NoOn-prem and air-gapped deployment is offered, yet nothing in the docs describes pointing Qodo at a local or self-hosted model endpoint. |
| Cost | ||
| Pricing model | seat | mixed |
| Starts at | $30/mo | $30/mo |
| Free tier | Yes | No |
| Bring your own key | Yes | Yes |
| Openness | ||
| Open source | No | No |
| License | proprietary | proprietary |
| GitHub stars | n/a | n/a |
Which one would each critic pick
| Critic | cubic | Qodo | Pick |
|---|---|---|---|
| El Juez | — | — | not enough reviews |
| El Amigo | 7.0 | 6.5 | cubic — Pick cubic if you are on GitHub and want a reviewer whose CLI also runs on uncommitted changes from inside Cursor, Claude Code or Codex; pick Bito if you are on GitLab or Bitbucket. |
| El Crítico | 6.5 | 5.8 | cubic — Background agents give the GitHub App write access so the reviewer can commit fixes; the docs limit that scope to fix branches and promise never to push to main. |
| El Profesor | 6.5 | 5.8 | cubic — The benchmark claim is well specified and third-party: Martian's Code Review Bench, F1 61.8%, precision 56.3%, recall 68.6%, self-reported by cubic on 25 March 2026. |
| La Inversora | 6.3 | 6.8 | Qodo — Qodo is selling governance to the buyer who signs the invoice rather than the developer who reads the comment, which is the correct customer and a crowded one. |
| La Jefa | 6.0 | 6.5 | Qodo — Qodo is built for the meeting where legal asks who reviewed what, but SSO and on-prem are Enterprise-only at custom pricing, so budget the sales call before the seats. |
| El Hacker | 4.0 | 3.8 | cubic — Closed and cloud, keys of my own only on Enterprise, no MCP, no local models; the CLI installs from a curl pipe or npx and custom review agents are text I can write. |
Picks are derived from each critic's own scores. Humans vote on matchups on the duels page.