Best Code Review Tools
Your code review process matters more than the tool—but the right tool helps
TL;DR
GitHub/GitLab built-in reviews are sufficient for most teams—master the process before adding tools. Reviewable enhances GitHub with better UX for complex reviews. LinearB and Sleuth provide review analytics if you want to optimize. Focus on review culture and practices before buying specialized tools.
Code review tools are peculiar: the built-in features of GitHub and GitLab are good enough for 95% of teams. Yet some teams still have painful reviews—slow, contentious, or rubber-stamped. The secret? Review quality comes from culture and process, not tools. That said, the right tooling can reinforce good practices and remove friction. Here's how to think about it.
What are Code Review Tools?
Code review tools facilitate peer review of code changes before they're merged. At minimum, they show diffs, enable comments, and track approval status. Advanced tools add automation (linting, security scanning), analytics (review time, bottlenecks), and workflow features (review assignment, stacking). Most teams use their Git hosting platform's built-in reviews.
Why Code Review Matters
Code review catches bugs before production, spreads knowledge across the team, and maintains code quality standards. Good reviews also mentor junior developers and ensure no one works in isolation. The ROI is clear: catching issues in review is 10-100x cheaper than finding them in production. But bad reviews—slow, hostile, or superficial—have negative value.
Key Features to Look For
Diff Viewer
essentialClear visualization of code changes with syntax highlighting
Inline Comments
essentialLeave feedback directly on specific lines of code
Review Status
essentialTrack approvals, requests for changes, review completion
CI Integration
importantShow test and lint results in the review context
Review Assignment
importantAutomatic or rule-based assignment of reviewers
Suggested Changes
importantPropose specific code changes reviewers can accept with one click
Review Analytics
nice-to-haveTrack review time, throughput, and bottlenecks
Stack Support
nice-to-haveReview dependent PRs without merge conflicts
Key Factors to Consider
- What's actually broken? Slow reviews, superficial feedback, unclear ownership?
- Do you need better tooling or better process?
- How does your team work? PR-based, trunk-based, stacked changes?
- Integration with existing workflow—GitHub/GitLab switching costs are high
- Team size matters—small teams rarely need specialized tools
Pricing Overview
Most code review is included with Git hosting. Specialized tools add $10-50/user/month.
Included
$0 (with Git hosting)
Most teams—GitHub/GitLab reviews work well
Enhanced
$10-$30/user/month
Teams wanting better UX or analytics
Enterprise
$30-$50+/user/month
Large teams with complex workflow needs
Top Picks
Based on features, user feedback, and value for money.
GitHub Pull Requests
Top PickThe default that works well for most teams
Best for: Teams already on GitHub wanting integrated, capable code review
Pros
- Integrated with everything
- Familiar interface
- Strong automation (Actions)
- Suggested changes feature
Cons
- Review UX could be better
- Large PRs are painful
- Limited analytics
- No native stack support
Reviewable
Enhanced code review UX for GitHub
Best for: GitHub teams wanting better review experience for complex changes
Pros
- Superior diff navigation
- Review tracking per-file
- Better large PR handling
- Keyboard shortcuts
Cons
- Adds another tool
- Learning curve
- GitHub dependency
- Smaller team behind it
LinearB
Engineering metrics and workflow optimization
Best for: Teams wanting data on review bottlenecks and engineering efficiency
Pros
- Great analytics and insights
- Identifies bottlenecks
- WorkerB helps with review routing
- Benchmarking data
Cons
- Not a review tool itself
- Privacy concerns for some
- Requires buy-in on metrics
- Added cost
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Blaming tools when the problem is culture—tools can't fix hostile or absent reviews
- Adding tooling complexity before mastering basic review practices
- Giant PRs that nobody can review effectively—keep changes small
- Review bottlenecks from too few reviewers—spread the load
- Treating review as gatekeeping instead of collaboration
Expert Tips
- Small PRs get better reviews—aim for under 400 lines of changes
- Review within 24 hours—long queues kill developer flow
- Use required status checks to enforce standards automatically
- Author provides context: summary, testing done, areas needing attention
- Measure review cycle time—it's often the biggest delay in your pipeline
The Bottom Line
GitHub and GitLab's built-in reviews work well for most teams. If you're struggling, fix your review culture before buying tools: small PRs, fast turnaround, constructive feedback. Reviewable helps if GitHub's UI is your bottleneck. LinearB helps if you need data on what's slowing you down. The best review tool is engaged teammates who care about code quality.
Frequently Asked Questions
How big should a pull request be?
Research suggests under 400 lines changed gets better reviews—beyond that, review quality drops sharply. Some teams target under 200 lines. If your PRs are routinely huge, that's your biggest improvement opportunity.
How long should code review take?
Industry benchmarks: first review within 24 hours, total cycle under 48 hours for most PRs. If you're consistently longer, you have a bottleneck—usually too few reviewers or PRs that are too large.
Should we require specific reviewers or let anyone approve?
It depends on code criticality. Core infrastructure might require specific experts. Feature code can often be reviewed by anyone on the team. CODEOWNERS on GitHub helps automate smart defaults.
Related Guides
Ready to Choose?
Compare features, read user reviews, and find the perfect tool for your needs.