CodeRabbit and Graphite were the two most-recommended tools in this category, each named in 3 of the 6 answers ChatGPT and Gemini gave when we asked them to name the best code review software. No product reached more than 3 of 6, so even the top of this category tops out at a 50% hit rate.
Across the six answers, ChatGPT and Gemini named 29 different products in total, and 18 of those 29 were named exactly once. Only 11 products were named in 2 or more of the 6 answers, and just 2 of them, CodeRabbit and Graphite, reached 3. There is no default winner the assistants fall back on here: the category is wide open, with a 50% ceiling and a long tail of one-time mentions.
The six questions did not return variations on one list; they returned genuinely different shortlists, with the widest answer naming 8 products and the narrowest just 5. That is the part worth reading closely, because it changes what "getting recommended" even means.
How the shortlist changed across the six questions
The bare "best code review software" question returned 8 products: GitHub Copilot Code Review, CodeRabbit, Cubic, Codacy, Crucible, DeepSource, Graphite and Greptile. Of those, four (GitHub Copilot Code Review, Cubic, Crucible and DeepSource) did not appear in any of the other five answers.
The two open-ended questions, "what code review software should I use" and "code review software recommendations," produced almost the same answer as each other: 6 of their 8 products were identical (GitHub Pull Requests, GitLab Merge Requests, Gerrit, CodeRabbit, Graphite and SonarQube). "What should I use" then added Cursor Bugbot and Reviewable; "recommendations" added Review Board and Codacy. When a buyer asks in general terms, the assistants lean on the same incumbent spine.
The "best free code review software" question threw that spine out entirely. It named just 5 products: Mira, OpenDiff, Kilo Code Reviewer, Qodo and HexmosTech/LiveReview. Three of those, OpenDiff, Qodo and HexmosTech/LiveReview, appeared in no other answer at all.
The "most affordable code review software" question did the same thing with a different cast: CodePeel, Git AutoReview, CodeCritic, Bito, Callstack.ai, Kodus and Kilo Code Reviewer, 7 products in all, of which five (CodePeel, Git AutoReview, CodeCritic, Callstack.ai and Kodus) appeared nowhere else. Only Kilo Code Reviewer bridged "free" and "affordable," showing up in both.
The "best for small teams" question sat in the middle with 6 products: Mira, MicroReview, Surmado Code Review, Bito, Greptile and review.ai. Three of those, MicroReview, Surmado Code Review and review.ai, appeared only here.
Here is the fan-out finding that matters most: the "best," "what should I use" and "recommendations" answers shared zero products with the "free" and "affordable" answers. Not one of CodeRabbit, Graphite, GitHub Pull Requests, GitLab Merge Requests, Gerrit or SonarQube appeared in either budget query, and not one of OpenDiff, CodePeel, Qodo, Kodus or Git AutoReview appeared in a generic one. To ChatGPT and Gemini, "best code review software" and "most affordable code review software" are two different questions with two non-overlapping answers.
The source map: who fed the answers
34 different domains fed the 6 answers ChatGPT and Gemini gave. The single most influential was sourcegraph.com, cited in 4 of the 6. Worth noting: Sourcegraph is itself a code tooling vendor, its roundup content was read four times, yet "Sourcegraph" was not named as a product in any of the 6 answers. Publishing the list the AI reads is not the same as being on it.
After that came github.com in 3 of 6, then a cluster cited in 2 of 6 each: bito.ai, deepsource.com, gartner.com, kilo.ai, stackfyi.com, toolradar.com and zendikt.com. That mix is the whole story of this category: a few third-party roundups (toolradar.com, stackfyi.com, zendikt.com), one analyst site (gartner.com), and a lot of vendors' own domains.
Not one community thread appeared. Across all 34 source domains there was no Reddit, no Quora and no forum of any kind. This category is unusual that way: the 6 answers were assembled from vendor sites and listicles, not from community discussion, which is where a lot of other software categories get their AI answers.
The pattern that matters most for a vendor: almost every named product also had its own website in the source list. CodeRabbit (named 3 times) had coderabbit.ai; Codacy (2) had codacy.com; Kilo Code Reviewer (2) had kilo.ai; Bito (2) had bito.ai; Greptile (2) had greptile.com. Down the one-mention tail the same shape holds: Qodo/qodo.ai, Cubic/cubic.dev, Kodus/kodus.io, OpenDiff/opendiff.dev, CodePeel/codepeel.com, Callstack.ai/callstack.ai, CodeCritic/code-critic.com, Git AutoReview/gitautoreview.com, Surmado/surmado.com, MicroReview/microreview.dev and Mira/miracode.ai. In this category, having a crawlable product site in the retrieved set is closely tied to getting named, true for at least 15 of the 29 named products.
The classic software directories were absent. G2 and Capterra did not feed a single one of the 6 answers. The only analyst-style source was gartner.com, in 2 of 6. If your plan to get recommended here rests on directory reviews, this data says that is not where these particular answers came from.
What to do if you sell code review software
The lever is the source list, not market share. GitHub, GitLab and Gerrit, the biggest incumbents by usage, appeared only for the three generic questions and were completely absent from the "free" and "affordable" answers, where unknown tools like OpenDiff and CodePeel took their slots. Being the market leader bought nothing on the budget questions; being in the retrieved page did.
So the work is concrete. Make sure your own product site is crawlable and plainly says "code review," with a pricing page and a free tier if you offer one, because a vendor's own domain being retrieved is the most repeated pattern in this data, seen for at least 15 of the 29 named products. Get into the roundups that actually fed answers here, sourcegraph.com's list (4 of 6), toolradar.com, stackfyi.com, zendikt.com and gitnux.org, rather than directories that never showed. And if you want the "free" or "most affordable" queries, you need pages that specifically say free or affordable, because those two answers shared zero products with "best."
The full list, counted
These are the 11 products named in 2 or more of the 6 answers, plus the second GitHub entry to show how the brand was double-labelled.
| Product | Named in | Share |
|---|---|---|
| CodeRabbit | 3 of 6 | 50% |
| Graphite | 3 of 6 | 50% |
| Bito | 2 of 6 | 33% |
| Codacy | 2 of 6 | 33% |
| Gerrit | 2 of 6 | 33% |
| GitHub Pull Requests | 2 of 6 | 33% |
| GitLab Merge Requests | 2 of 6 | 33% |
| Greptile | 2 of 6 | 33% |
| Kilo Code Reviewer | 2 of 6 | 33% |
| Mira | 2 of 6 | 33% |
| SonarQube | 2 of 6 | 33% |
| GitHub Copilot Code Review | 1 of 6 | 17% |
GitHub's brand shows up twice in the data, once as "GitHub Pull Requests" (2 of 6) and separately as "GitHub Copilot Code Review" (1 of 6). We are keeping them as two rows because the assistants named two different GitHub products, and we are not merging them into a "GitHub, 3 of 6" figure the measurement never produced.
Where Glotier fits
Glotier does not sell code review software, so we are correctly absent from all 6 of these answers, and we would not trust a visibility tool that claimed otherwise. But running this measurement is exactly what Glotier does: the same six buyer questions, put to the assistants your buyers actually use, with every product and every source domain written down. If you sell in this category, you can run the same check on your own category, free, no account, in about a minute, and find out whether ChatGPT and Gemini put you in the 3-of-6 group or the tail that gets named once.