Cubic

Cubic is an AI code-review service for GitHub teams that want pull requests checked against their codebase and review rules. It suits teams building a consistent review workflow, especially those with senior reviewers whose feedback can shape suggestions. Its workflow controls and codebase scans are compelling, but GitHub-only hosting and per-developer review allowances limit its fit.

Overview

Cubic reviews pull requests in the context of the wider codebase, which can expose potential breakage beyond the changed files. It also scans codebases for bugs and security issues. Its review behavior can learn from senior developers’ past comments and team feedback, making it more adaptable to a team’s practices than a fixed set of checks.

There is a firm boundary on review scope: when a pull request contains more than 200 eligible files, Cubic selects up to 200 of the highest-priority files. Teams handling unusually broad changes should not expect every eligible file to be reviewed.

Key features

• Codebase-aware reviews: Reviews use relevant code context and team rules, rather than treating the pull request diff in isolation. That is useful for teams concerned about changes causing problems elsewhere.
• Configurable workflow: Cubic can auto-approve low-risk pull requests, give each pull request a merge confidence score from 1 to 5, and let coding agents fix findings. These controls can reduce routine review work, though teams should decide where automated approval is appropriate.
• Custom review agents and integrations: Paid plans provide custom review agents, while Team includes Jira, Linear, and Asana integrations. The pricing page also lists Notion integrations; Confluence and MCP integrations are available on certain paid plans.
• Security and code handling: Cubic says it is SOC 2 Type I compliant, encrypts data in transit with TLS 1.2+ and at rest with AES-256, and bars AI providers from training on customer code. Reviews run in isolated containers, with AI processing the pull request diff and only the context needed for review. These controls matter for teams weighing code-review automation against code confidentiality.

Pricing

Cubic has a free plan and paid plans from $30/mo (annual). Paid prices are per developer per month and billed yearly, so team cost scales with seats. Free is useful for trying the workflow or reviewing public repositories, but its monthly review cap is much lower than the paid allowances.

• Starter Free — free: 20 PR reviews a month; free for public repositories. This is a narrow starting point, not a large-team allowance.
• Team — $30 a month: $30 per developer per month, billed yearly, with 40k reviewed lines per developer, 5 custom review agents, 5 private wikis, PR and CLI reviews, and Jira, Linear, and Asana. It is the entry paid option for teams that need private-workspace support and configurable review tools.
• Pro — $79 a month: $79 per developer per month, billed yearly, with 80k reviewed lines per developer, 10 custom review agents, codebase scans for 3 repos, premium support, and a shared Slack channel with Cubic engineers. This suits teams that need scans and a more direct support channel, but its higher per-seat cost may be difficult to justify if those features are not used.
• Max — $160 a month: $160 per developer per month, billed yearly, with 160k reviewed lines per developer and every Pro feature. It is aimed at teams whose review volume exceeds Pro’s allowance; the price is a substantial step up per developer.
• Enterprise Custom — custom pricing: SSO/SAML, audit logs, custom terms, custom review limits, and dedicated support. This is the option for organizations needing those controls and terms rather than a published per-seat price.

When a team exceeds its reviewed-line allowance, reviews pause until the next billing period unless an admin enables flex capacity. Flex costs $20 per 10,000 extra lines, up to a configured monthly limit.

Platforms

Cubic is available on web and offers desktop builds for macOS Apple Silicon, macOS Intel, Windows, and Linux; it also lists API access. It supports GitHub, including GitHub Enterprise Cloud, but not GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab, or Bitbucket. That makes it a poor fit for teams committed to other hosting platforms. Cubic describes its language support as language-agnostic and names JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, Go, Ruby, Java, and C# among supported languages.

Who it's for

Cubic is best suited to GitHub teams that want codebase-aware pull-request reviews, team-specific rules, and options to automate low-risk approvals or route findings to coding agents. Pro and Max add premium support and a shared Slack channel with Cubic engineers; Enterprise offers dedicated support. Teams needing broader Git-host coverage, or whose workloads regularly exceed the 200-file review ceiling, should look elsewhere.

Pros and cons

Pros

• Reviews account for the wider codebase: This helps teams look for downstream effects, not only defects in changed lines.
• Feedback can shape future suggestions: Learning from senior developers’ comments and team feedback gives teams a path to align review behavior with their practices.
• Useful controls for recurring review work: Merge confidence scoring, low-risk auto-approval, and coding-agent fixes offer more workflow control than review comments alone.
• Defined security and handling measures: Encryption, isolated review containers, and a prohibition on AI-provider training with customer code address important confidentiality concerns.

Cons

• GitHub only: Teams on GitLab, Bitbucket, or GitHub Enterprise Server cannot use Cubic for their hosted repositories.
• Allowance limits can interrupt reviews: Exceeding reviewed lines pauses reviews unless flex capacity is enabled, which adds cost; large pull requests also receive review on at most 200 eligible files.
• Paid costs scale by developer: Annual billing and per-developer pricing make larger teams pay more, while Max is a notable per-seat jump from Pro.

Alternatives

AI Code Review Tools and Code review software are useful starting points for comparing options by category.

• CodeRabbit is another freemium option with a free plan and support across API, extension, desktop, web, and self-hosted platforms; consider it if that platform breadth matters.
• DeepSource is freemium and lists unlimited public repositories and team members on its Open Source plan; consider it if those open-source allowances fit your needs.
• LiveReview is a freemium alternative with API, extension, desktop, web, and self-hosted platforms.
• Octopus offers a free, source-available self-hosted plan where customers supply AI keys or run local models; consider it if self-hosting and choosing the model supply are priorities.
• ThinkReview has a $10 a month Lite plan with 15 review credits a day, reviews for pull requests up to 40,000 lines, and up to 3 custom review agents per pull request; consider it if those limits and price suit your workload.
• Ironwood AI is a paid alternative with a 30-day evaluation for 2 developers and full Professional features; consider it if a time-limited evaluation is preferable to Cubic’s free plan.
• Ellipsis offers a free Individuals plan for people with a Claude Code or Codex subscription; consider it if you already use either subscription.
• Gitar is a paid alternative that offers free access for qualifying public repositories; consider it if your repository meets its stated eligibility requirements.

Verdict

Choose Cubic if your team uses GitHub and wants reviews shaped by codebase context and team feedback, with controls for approvals and agent-driven fixes. Its main advantage is a workflow that goes beyond commenting on the diff; its main drawback is the combination of GitHub-only hosting and per-developer line allowances that can pause reviews. Teams on unsupported hosts or with unpredictable review volume should compare alternatives before committing to an annual plan.