The 12 Best Code review tools for Modern Teams in 2026

In software development, code review is a key checkpoint for quality and knowledge sharing. But without the right framework, it can become a bottleneck -- marked by slow communication, missed defects, and developer frustration. Manually managing diffs, tracking comments in emails, or relying on ad-hoc chat messages doesn't scale and introduces real risk. Good tooling turns this process from a chore into an integrated part of the development lifecycle.

This guide helps you find the best code review tools for your specific needs, whether you're a solo developer, part of a small startup, or scaling within a large enterprise. We go beyond generic feature lists to provide a practical analysis of the top options available today. You'll find a detailed breakdown of tools built into Git hosting platforms like GitHub and GitLab, as well as specialized, standalone solutions such as Collaborator and Review Board.

Each entry includes a clear summary, standout features, and practical insights into its best-use cases. We cover key considerations like:

• Pricing models: From free and open-source options to enterprise-grade paid platforms.
• Team size suitability: Recommendations for small teams, growing businesses, and large organizations.
• Key integrations: How each tool connects with your existing CI/CD pipelines, Git repositories, and project management systems.

We examine the pros and cons of each tool, supported by screenshots and direct links, to give you a clear picture of real-world usage. This resource should help you select a tool that enforces best practices, improves code quality, and fits your team's workflow.

1. GitHub (Pull Requests and Code Review)

GitHub's native code review functionality is often the default choice for development teams, and for good reason. The Pull Request (PR) is the core mechanism: a dedicated space for discussing proposed changes, commenting directly on lines of code, and requesting feedback from specific team members or entire teams.

What makes GitHub one of the best code review tools is its ecosystem and extensibility. Branch protection rules let teams mandate reviews from designated "Code Owners" before a merge is permitted. The Checks API connects PRs directly to your build and test pipelines, preventing buggy code from being merged. For more on this automation, you can explore some of the best CI/CD tools that integrate well here.

Key details and use case

• Best for: Teams of all sizes already using GitHub for version control, especially open-source projects and organizations wanting a single, unified platform.
• Pricing: Core review features are free for all users, including public and private repositories. Advanced features like GitHub Advanced Security and some Copilot capabilities require Team or Enterprise plans.
• Practical tip: Use the CODEOWNERS file in your repository's root to automatically assign reviewers based on which files are changed. This speeds up the review process by routing PRs to the right experts without manual intervention.

Pros:

• Ubiquitous platform with a rich marketplace and many DevOps integrations
• Granular repo/branch rules help standardize review quality
• Strong ecosystem for compliance and analytics add-ons

Cons:

• Advanced security features and some AI features require paid add-ons
• Large or complex PRs can feel clunky without good process hygiene

Website: github.com/features/code-review

2. GitLab (Merge Request Reviews)

GitLab positions itself as a single application for the entire DevSecOps lifecycle, and its code review capabilities reflect that. The Merge Request (MR) is the centerpiece: threaded discussions, inline comments, and the ability to suggest changes directly in the UI make the review process interactive and efficient. The real strength is tight integration of CI/CD and security scanning directly into the MR pipeline.

What makes GitLab one of the best code review tools is its focus on built-in security and compliance. Merge request approval rules can act as gates, preventing merges until security scans pass, test coverage meets a threshold, or specific approvers sign off. For teams managing complex projects, GitLab's review features are closely linked with its issue tracking and planning boards, providing a cohesive workflow that many of the best project management tools aim to match. The platform has also integrated GitLab Duo, an AI assistant that helps summarize changes and assist in reviews.

Key details and use case

• Best for: Teams seeking an all-in-one DevSecOps platform, especially those in regulated industries or organizations that prefer a self-managed deployment option.
• Pricing: Core review features are available in the Free tier. Advanced approval rules, security scanning, and compliance features require Premium or Ultimate plans. AI add-ons are sold separately.
• Practical tip: Use the "Resolve discussion" feature to make sure every piece of feedback is addressed before merging. This creates a clear, auditable trail showing that all concerns were considered, which is invaluable for compliance and team accountability.

Pros:

• Tight CI/CD and security gates directly in the MR flow
• Strong compliance features available in higher tiers
• Self-managed and SaaS deployment options

Cons:

• Many enterprise and team controls are in Premium or Ultimate tiers
• AI add-ons use credits and pricing can be a cost-sensitive factor

Website: about.gitlab.com/direction/create/

3. Bitbucket (Pull Requests)

For teams deeply invested in the Atlassian ecosystem, Bitbucket offers a tightly integrated Git hosting and code review experience. Its strength is the connection between code changes and project management. The Pull Request provides a space for inline comments, viewing diffs and commits, and managing the approval workflow, all while maintaining a direct link to Jira issues or Trello cards.

This deep integration makes Bitbucket one of the best code review tools for teams that prioritize traceability. Merge checks can enforce required approvals before code can be merged, and built-in Pipelines allow for CI/CD automation directly within the same interface. This removes the need for context switching between your repository, build server, and issue tracker. Pairing this with the right editor can further boost productivity; you can explore some of the best free code editors that work well with any Git workflow.

Key details and use case

• Best for: Development teams already using Jira and other Atlassian products who want a single, cohesive environment for project management and version control.
• Pricing: A free tier is available with limits on users and build minutes. Standard and Premium plans add more advanced features, storage, and build minutes.
• Practical tip: Use Smart Commits to update Jira issues directly from your commit messages. For example, git commit -m "JRA-34 #in-progress #comment corrected the login bug" will transition the Jira issue, add a comment, and link the commit automatically.

Pros:

• Tight integration with Jira/Trello for planning and traceability
• Strong permissioning and IP allowlisting in Premium plans
• Built-in CI/CD with Bitbucket Pipelines simplifies automation

Cons:

• Pricing and plan features have changed over time, potentially increasing costs
• Repo size limits and pipeline minute/storage overages may require paid add-ons

Website: bitbucket.org/product/guides/basics/four-starting-steps

4. Azure DevOps (Repos + Pull Requests)

Microsoft's all-in-one development suite, Azure DevOps, provides a deeply integrated code review experience within its Azure Repos service. The platform uses Pull Requests (PRs) as its central mechanism, but its key advantage is the native connection to the entire development lifecycle: work item tracking in Boards, automated builds in Pipelines, and artifact management. This makes it one of the best code review tools for teams invested in the Microsoft ecosystem.

Branch policies are the cornerstone of quality control in Azure Repos, enabling teams to enforce required reviewers, successful build checks, and work item linking before a merge can occur. Every change is not only reviewed but also fully traceable back to a requirement or bug. For teams focused on end-to-end traceability, connecting PRs directly to work items can be complemented by using some of the best bug tracking software to manage the defect lifecycle.

Key details and use case

• Best for: Enterprise teams, particularly those using other Microsoft Azure services, who need a single, governed platform for the entire development workflow.
• Pricing: Free for the first 5 users with unlimited private Git repos. Paid tiers (starting with the Basic Plan) add more users and access to more services like Test Plans.
• Practical tip: Use branch policy status checks to integrate third-party analysis tools like SonarQube. This blocks PR completion until static analysis and code quality checks pass, automating a layer of review beyond human inspection.

Pros:

• Excellent end-to-end workflow integration (Boards, Repos, Pipelines)
• Strong enterprise governance and Active Directory/SSO integration
• Highly configurable branch policies enforce strict quality gates

Cons:

• The user interface can feel heavier and more complex than competitors
• Creating a new organization may require an active Azure subscription

Website: azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/devops/

5. Gerrit Code Review

Originally developed by Google, Gerrit is a web-based, open-source code review tool built on top of Git. Unlike the pull request model, Gerrit centers its workflow around "change sets," where each commit is a distinct, reviewable unit. This approach is highly structured and offers granular control over the review process, making it a strong fit for large, complex projects with strict quality gates.

What makes Gerrit one of the best code review tools for certain environments is its configurable approval system. Reviewers don't just approve changes; they apply labels and scores (e.g., +1, +2, -1), which are then evaluated against custom submit rules. This lets organizations build multi-stage approval workflows that can prevent merges until specific criteria, such as passing automated tests and receiving a senior developer's sign-off, are met. As a free tool, it's a great example of the open source developer tools available to engineering teams.

Key details and use case

• Best for: Large enterprises or projects (like Android Open Source Project) with complex monorepos that require a highly structured, gate-driven review and submission process.
• Pricing: Free and open source. Commercial support and hosting are available from third-party vendors.
• Practical tip: Leverage the refs/for/* Git refspec when pushing changes. This special destination tells Gerrit to create a new review for your commit rather than pushing directly to the branch, which is the core of its review-first workflow.

Pros:

• Scales well for large monorepos and strict workflows
• Approval models go well beyond simple "LGTM" workflows
• Open source (no license fee) with available commercial support

Cons:

• Steeper learning curve compared with PR-style tools
• Fewer off-the-shelf integrations versus GitHub/GitLab

Website: www.gerritcodereview.com

6. Reviewable (for GitHub)

Reviewable is a specialized code review tool that plugs directly into GitHub Pull Requests, aiming to solve common frustrations in complex review cycles. It's not a replacement for GitHub but rather an improved UI built on top of it. Its purpose is to reduce review churn and improve discussion clarity, especially on PRs that undergo frequent updates and rebases.

The standout feature is its intelligent line mapping, which understands which code changes you've already seen, even after a rebase. This prevents the tedious process of re-reviewing lines that haven't actually changed. Per-file reviewer assignments and custom completion criteria help enforce stricter quality gates than what GitHub offers natively, making it one of the best code review tools for teams with high-throughput workflows.

Key details and use case

• Best for: Teams that heavily use GitHub and find the native PR interface slow or insufficient for complex, fast-moving projects with frequent rebasing.
• Pricing: Free for public repositories. Private repositories have a 30-day free trial, followed by a per-user monthly subscription.
• Practical tip: Use the "Mark as Not Reviewed" feature on files. If a developer pushes a small fix to one file, you can isolate your re-review to just that file instead of having to re-approve the entire pull request.

Pros:

• Intelligent diff tracking smooths out reviews for fast-moving PRs
• Adds granular policy and workflow controls on top of native GitHub
• Unified dashboard gives a clear overview of review progress

Cons:

• Strictly a GitHub-only integration; not available for GitLab or Bitbucket
• Requires team members to learn and adopt a separate UI, which can cause friction

Website: www.reviewable.io

7. SmartBear Collaborator

For teams in highly regulated industries or those managing a mix of version control systems, SmartBear Collaborator provides a structured and auditable review process. It goes beyond just code, allowing teams to peer-review documents, schematics, and user stories within a single platform. Its key differentiator is its emphasis on formal compliance and governance, making it a strong choice where traceability and accountability matter most.

Unlike tools embedded within a single Git provider, Collaborator is vendor-neutral, supporting Git, Subversion, Perforce, TFS, and more. This makes it one of the best code review tools for organizations with diverse or legacy repositories. The platform formalizes reviews with customizable checklists, defined user roles, and electronic signatures to make sure every change meets regulatory standards before it proceeds.

Key details and use case

• Best for: Enterprise teams in regulated sectors like aerospace, medical devices, or finance that require detailed audit trails and support for heterogeneous version control systems.
• Pricing: Offered in Team and Enterprise tiers with pricing available upon request. A free trial is available to evaluate its features.
• Practical tip: Use the custom checklist feature to codify your team's specific review standards. This means every reviewer checks for common errors, security vulnerabilities, and style guide adherence, creating a consistent review process that is easy to audit.

Pros:

• Strong enterprise governance, auditability, and e-signature support
• Works across heterogeneous repositories and artifact types
• Excellent for enforcing compliance in regulated environments

Cons:

• Heavier administration and user experience compared with lightweight PR tools
• The most useful compliance features are available in higher-tier editions

Website: smartbear.com/product/collaborator

8. Review Board (self-hosted) / RBCommons (hosted)

Review Board is a mature, open-source tool that offers flexibility for teams managing diverse version control systems. It decouples the review process from the source code repository, providing a dedicated web-based interface for discussing changes. Its broad VCS support -- Git, Mercurial, Perforce, and Subversion -- is a real advantage for organizations with legacy or mixed-repository environments.

Unlike tools tightly integrated into a Git hosting platform, Review Board also supports reviewing documents like technical specifications alongside code. Features like inter-diffs (showing changes between review drafts) and moved-line detection help reviewers focus on what actually changed since their last look. The platform is highly extensible through its API and a system for writing custom extensions, making it a solid choice for teams needing specific workflow automations or integrations.

Key details and use case

• Best for: Organizations needing a centralized review tool across multiple version control systems (e.g., Git, SVN, Perforce) or those who want a cost-effective, self-hosted solution.
• Pricing: The self-hosted Review Board is free and open-source. RBCommons, the hosted version, offers plans starting from $29/month for 10 users. A "Power Pack" add-on for reporting and PDF review is available for both.
• Practical tip: Use the command-line client tool, rbt, to post changes for review directly from your terminal. This integrates the review submission process into a developer's natural command-line workflow, reducing context switching.

Pros:

• Excellent multi-VCS support is ideal for complex or legacy environments
• Open source and free for self-hosting, with an affordable hosted option
• Flexible and extensible via a well-documented API and extension framework

Cons:

• The user interface feels dated compared to modern SaaS alternatives
• Self-hosting requires server maintenance and operational overhead
• Lacks the deep, native integration with build/deploy pipelines found in all-in-one platforms

Website: www.reviewboard.org

9. Perforce Helix Swarm (for Helix Core)

For teams working with massive codebases and large binary assets, Perforce Helix Swarm offers a specialized code review environment. It is the companion review tool for Helix Core, a version control system popular in game development, visual effects, and semiconductor design. Swarm integrates directly into the Perforce workflow, enabling reviews of changelists and streams with features tailored to its user base, such as handling enormous files that are impractical in Git.

What makes Helix Swarm a contender among the best code review tools is its focus on performance and scale within a non-Git ecosystem. The tool provides threaded discussions, issue tracking, and customizable review workflows that respect Helix Core's permissions model. Only authorized individuals can approve changes, which is a requirement for enterprise and high-compliance environments. While it lacks the broad SaaS marketplace of its Git-based counterparts, its tight integration with Perforce's toolset is its primary advantage.

Key details and use case

• Best for: Enterprise teams in gaming, media, or hardware engineering already committed to the Perforce Helix Core version control system.
• Pricing: Helix Swarm is included at no additional cost with a Helix Core license. Perforce pricing is typically quote-based, with free options for small teams.
• Practical tip: Use Swarm's project-based workflows to define mandatory reviewers and automated tests for specific branches or code paths. This helps enforce quality gates in complex, monolithic repositories where different teams own different components.

Pros:

• Excels at handling very large repositories and binary assets
• Deep integration with the Perforce Helix Core permissions and workflow model
• Included at no extra cost with Helix Core licenses

Cons:

• Only beneficial for teams already using the Perforce ecosystem
• Limited third-party SaaS integrations compared to GitHub or GitLab

Website: www.perforce.com/products/helix-swarm

10. RhodeCode (Enterprise/Community)

RhodeCode is a self-hosted platform that manages Git, Mercurial, and Subversion repositories under a single roof. This makes it useful for organizations with legacy codebases or diverse version control needs. It provides a centralized system for permissions, access control, and code review, bridging modern and legacy systems within a secure, on-premises environment.

As one of the best code review tools for regulated industries, RhodeCode supports LDAP, Active Directory, SAML, and OAuth, making integration into existing corporate infrastructure straightforward. The review process includes inline comments and smart reviewer suggestions, helping maintain quality across teams working with different version control systems.

Key details and use case

• Best for: Enterprises in regulated sectors like finance or healthcare that require an on-premises solution to manage a mix of Git, Mercurial, and SVN repositories.
• Pricing: A free, open-source Community Edition is available. Paid Enterprise and cloud plans offer support, high availability, and advanced authentication integrations.
• Practical tip: Use the centralized permission model to create "repository groups." This lets you apply a single set of access rules across multiple repositories, even if they use different version control systems, saving administrative time.

Pros:

• Strong fit for regulated, on-prem, multi-VCS environments
• Affordable Enterprise licensing and a free open-source edition
• Centralized authentication and fine-grained permissions

Cons:

• Smaller ecosystem compared with major hosted platforms
• Heavier to operate and maintain than hosted SaaS alternatives

Website: rhodecode.com

11. Crucible (Atlassian, on-prem)

Crucible is Atlassian's on-premise code review tool, designed for organizations with strict regulatory or legacy system requirements. Often paired with Fisheye for repository browsing, it supports both pre-commit ("patch") and post-commit reviews across multiple version control systems, including Git, SVN, and Perforce. Its formal review process features threaded discussions, checklists, and explicit review summaries, all within a self-hosted environment.

Crucible is now in basic maintenance mode, receiving only security and bug fixes. Atlassian is directing new customers toward Bitbucket Data Center or Cloud. For established teams deeply integrated with its formal review model or those operating in air-gapped networks, it remains a functional solution and one of the few on-premise-first code review tools available.

Key details and use case

• Best for: Enterprises in regulated industries or with legacy on-premise infrastructure who already have a Crucible license and workflow in place.
• Pricing: New server licenses are no longer available. Existing customers can renew maintenance. Data Center pricing is available for Fisheye & Crucible.
• Practical tip: Integrate Crucible with your Jira instance to link code reviews directly to issues. This creates a clear audit trail from task creation to code approval, which is valuable for compliance and project tracking in formal development settings.

Pros:

• Strong support for multiple VCSs (Git, SVN, Perforce)
• Provides a dedicated, formal UI for creating and tracking reviews
• On-premise deployment meets strict security or data residency needs

Cons:

• In basic maintenance mode; no new features will be developed
• The UI and workflow feel dated compared to modern Git platforms
• Atlassian's strategic focus has shifted to Bitbucket

Website: atlassian.com/software/crucible

12. GerritForge (Gerrit Enterprise Support/Hosting)

For organizations committed to Gerrit's patch-set-based review workflow but hesitant to manage the infrastructure, GerritForge provides managed Gerrit instances, enterprise-grade support, and expert consulting. This lets teams adopt one of the most rigorous code review tools without the operational overhead of self-hosting, patching, and scaling the open-source platform.

GerritForge productizes Gerrit for the enterprise, delivering certified binaries and guaranteed service-level agreements (SLAs). You get all the benefits of Gerrit's strict, pre-merge review model -- ideal for large, regulated, or mission-critical projects -- while offloading the administration to specialists. This makes it a strong option among the best code review tools for companies that need Gerrit's workflow but lack the internal resources to run it.

Key details and use case

• Best for: Large enterprises, especially in automotive or embedded systems, that have standardized on Gerrit and require guaranteed uptime, expert support, and predictable operational costs.
• Pricing: Based on tiered subscription plans that include support response targets, certified binaries, and managed hosting options. Pricing is available upon request.
• Practical tip: Use GerritForge's consulting services during initial setup to properly configure replication, high availability, and integrations. A proper initial architecture prevents scaling problems down the road.

Pros:

• Offloads complex Gerrit administration and maintenance
• Provides predictable SLAs and direct access to Gerrit experts
• Ideal for organizations that require Gerrit's strict review model for compliance

Cons:

• Represents an additional cost on top of infrastructure compared to self-hosting
• Only valuable if your organization is already committed to the Gerrit workflow

Website: www.gerritforge.com

Top 12 code review tools: feature comparison

Making your choice: a practical framework

Selecting the right code review tool is about identifying the solution that aligns with your team's workflow, technical stack, and scale. We've covered a wide range: integrated platforms like GitHub and GitLab that centralize the developer experience, alongside specialized tools like SmartBear Collaborator and Reviewable that offer focused review capabilities. A structured code review process, backed by the right software, directly improves code quality and helps distribute knowledge across the team.

Your decision should reflect your priorities. For many teams, the simplest path is the most effective. If your codebase lives on GitHub, GitLab, or Azure DevOps, their built-in pull and merge request features offer a zero-friction entry point. These platforms are often enough for most review needs, providing inline commenting, discussion threads, and basic approval workflows without another tool on the stack.

But as we've seen, these integrated solutions have limits. When your needs get more specific, dedicated tools become worthwhile.

A practical checklist for your evaluation

Before you commit, run through these considerations. This isn't just about features -- it's about how a tool will work day-to-day for your team.

• Workflow integration vs. disruption: How much will this tool change your current process? Reviewable layers on top of GitHub, augmenting the existing workflow. A self-hosted Gerrit instance requires a significant shift in how developers commit and share code. Be realistic about the change your team can absorb.

• Review depth and rigor: Does your team handle mission-critical code requiring multi-stage approvals and audit trails? If so, SmartBear Collaborator or Perforce Helix Swarm, with their emphasis on formal reviews and compliance, makes more sense than a basic pull request system. For open-source projects or teams prioritizing discussion, Review Board might be a better fit.

• Cost beyond the subscription: The sticker price is only part of the total cost. A "free" self-hosted tool like Gerrit or Review Board requires engineering time for setup, maintenance, and upgrades. Cloud-based solutions shift this burden to the provider, but subscriptions can scale quickly with team size.

• Ecosystem and automation: Consider how a potential tool connects with your CI/CD pipeline, issue tracker, and notification systems. Does it offer a robust API for custom integrations? Automating status checks, triggering builds on review approvals, and linking discussions back to Jira tickets are real productivity gains.

Final thoughts on implementation

The goal is to make code reviews a productive part of your development lifecycle, not another administrative hurdle. Start small. If you're considering a new tool, pilot it with a single team or project. Gather direct feedback on what works and what causes friction. A tool that looks perfect on a feature list might feel clunky in practice.

The most effective code review process is one that your team actually follows. The software you choose should support that consistency by reducing manual effort and clarifying communication. Whether you stick with your Git host's interface or adopt a specialized review platform, pick a tool that helps your team build better software.

Finding it difficult to weigh all these options? Toolradar offers detailed, side-by-side comparisons and expert analysis on developer tools. Use our platform at Toolradar to filter the best code review tools based on your stack, team size, and feature requirements.