Bito
Bito is an AI code-review and architect platform. First-party docs at docs.bito.ai/bito-dev-agent/pricing still list Team $15 / user / month monthly or $12 billed yearly, plus a Professional row at $25 / user / month monthly or $20 billed yearly. Team includes 5,000 lines / user / month and $5 / extra 1,000 lines. Docs also mention a 10-day Pro trial. The old 89% faster / 34% fewer regressions slogans are vendor marketing; we did not keep them as audited outcomes.
Compare CodeRabbit if you wanted Lite $12 / Pro $24 / Team $30 yearly seats, and Qodo if you wanted credit packs from $30 / month instead of a line quota.
Key Features
- PR review agent: Docs still cover GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket reviews with summaries and line comments. Confirm which hosts are on your plan.
- IDE plus CLI: The product still mentions VS Code, JetBrains, and local CLI review. Treat the installed extension as the catalog.
- AI Architect: Marketing still sells a codebase graph for design and impact questions, including MCP into coding agents.
- Guidelines and analytics: Team/Professional docs still mention custom review rules and dashboards. Do not assume every rule pack is on Free.
- Privacy claim: The site still says it does not train on your code and cites SOC 2. Confirm the current trust page before you put that in a contract.
Use Cases
- Teams that want a first-pass PR bot and will pay Team $12 yearly or $15 monthly.
- Orgs that need the Professional extras and will pay $20 yearly or $25 monthly.
- People comparing Bito vs CodeRabbit vs Qodo on public seats and line or credit meters.
Limitation: 5,000 lines / seat can run out on busy repos. Architect is not a transparent public SKU. AI comments still need a human.
Pricing
docs.bito.ai/bito-dev-agent/pricing on 2026-08-17. Yearly first where the docs give both.
| Plan | Price | Notes from that page |
|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 | Individual / hobby. Limited. |
| Team | $12 / user / mo yearly ($15 monthly) | 5,000 lines / user / month. Extra $5 / 1,000 lines. |
| Professional | $20 / user / mo yearly ($25 monthly) | Still on the docs table. Adds paid extras. |
| Enterprise | Custom | SSO and sales. |
The marketing homepage cards on the public page led with Free / Team / Enterprise. Quote Professional only from the docs table, not from a homepage hero.
Getting Started
- Open bito.ai/pricing and the docs pricing page before you buy.
- Connect one GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket repo and read one review.
- Stay on Team if 5,000 lines / seat is enough. Confirm overage at $5 / 1,000 lines.
- Use the 10-day Pro trial only as a trial. It is not a forever Professional seat.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Professional $20 gone?
Not in the docs table on the public page. Homepage cards may hide it. Quote $20 yearly / $25 monthly from docs.
Is Team still $12?
Yes, on the yearly column. Monthly is $15 / user.
Did we keep 89% faster merges?
No. That is vendor marketing, not a number we re-audited.
Same as CodeRabbit?
Both are PR review bots. CodeRabbit's public yearly seats are $12 / $24 / $30. Bito's documented paid rows are Team $12 and Professional $20, plus a 5,000-line meter.
Alternatives
- CodeRabbit: Lite $12 / Pro $24 / Team $30 yearly.
- Qodo: Credit packs from $30 / month, not a 5,000-line seat.
- GitHub Copilot: Completions and a cloud agent if review is not the bottleneck.
Tips
- Quote $12 / $15 and $20 / $25 from the docs page.
- Do not paste 89% / 34% into a deck.
- Confirm line burn before you assume Team is cheaper than CodeRabbit Pro.
Conclusion
Bito is a priced PR review and Architect product with a documented Team $12 / Professional $20 yearly table and a 5,000-line meter, not an unmetered 89% faster reviewer. Start at docs.bito.ai/bito-dev-agent/pricing, then decide whether CodeRabbit already covers the seat you need.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Related Tools
Related Insights
Seven AI Coding CLIs, Six Months: No Matter How Strong the Model, Work Needs Supervision
Claude Code, Codex, opencode, pi, omp and DeepSeek Harness all have personalities. After six months of deep use I run a division of labor: pi for the fastest cheapest reviews, omp for complex PRs, DeepSeek Harness on V4 Flash for high-frequency low-cost review, and Claude Code, Qoder and Cursor for writing. No matter how strong the model, work needs supervision — ideally from an independent third party.
Skills + Hooks + Plugins: How Anthropic Redefined AI Coding Tool Extensibility
An in-depth analysis of Claude Code's trinity architecture of Skills, Hooks, and Plugins. Explore why this design is more advanced than GitHub Copilot and Cursor, and how it redefines AI coding tool extensibility through open standards.
Stop Cramming AI Assistants into Chat Boxes: Clawdbot Picked the Wrong Battlefield
Clawdbot is convenient, but putting it inside Slack or Discord was the wrong design choice from day one. Chat tools are not for operating tasks, and AI isn't for chatting.