Why We're Building CodeReviewr

Last month, I tallied up all my developer tool subscriptions.

Cursor. Linear. Vercel. Claude. Sentry. Postman. CloudWatch. Datadog. And of course a code review tool I'd been paying $30/month for despite only using it two times a week on my side projects.

The total? $240 per month. $2,880 per year.

Here's what bothered me most: My code review tool charged per seat, per month, regardless of how much I actually used it. I was effectively paying $7.50 per review for something that could have cost me less than $1 if I only paid for what I used.

That's when we started asking: What if developer tools stopped charging for access and started charging for value?

The per-seat prison

The AI code review market is booming. It's valued at $750 million in 2025, growing at 9.2% annually, and 76% of developers are using or planning to use AI tools. The demand is clear. The technology works. The market is validated.

So why are developers increasingly frustrated?

CodeRabbit charges $12-30 per month per seat. GitHub Copilot: $10-39. Qodo: $30-45. Bito: $15-25. Every major player uses the same model: per-seat, per-month, regardless of usage.

For enterprise teams doing hundreds of reviews daily, this makes sense. But for the rest of us?

Sarah, a freelance developer managing three client projects, does maybe 15 code reviews per month across all projects. She pays $30/month, which works out to $2 per review for a tool she uses sporadically.

Marcus runs a two-person startup. His team fluctuates between intense sprint weeks (30 reviews) and quiet planning weeks (3 reviews). He still pays $60/month whether they ship daily or barely at all.

The indie hacker working nights and weekends on a SaaS product does maybe 10 reviews per month. Paying $180-360 per year for a tool they use twice a week feels wasteful, so they just skip AI code review entirely.

There are 180,830 freelance software developers in the United States alone. 50% of all developers work in teams of 2-7 people. This isn't a niche. This is half the developer market.

The math that makes no sense

90% of professional teams employ code review procedures, but frequency varies wildly. Some teams review multiple times daily. Others review once or twice a week. Side projects? Maybe 5-10 times per month.

Research shows that 8 out of 10 companies using per-user pricing should be using a different value metric, simply because their products don't provide more value with additional users.

Code review tools are the perfect example. The value isn't in adding more seats. It's in the quality and speed of each review. Yet every major tool punishes small teams and solo developers with per-seat pricing that doesn't reflect actual value delivered.

The average person now juggles 12 active subscriptions, and subscription fatigue is real enough that it's spawned an entire industry projected to reach $9.8 billion by 2034. For developers specifically, tool subscription overload has become a running joke and a genuine financial burden.

Our competitors are killing it (that's the point)

Our competitors are wildly successful.

CodeRabbit just raised a $60 million Series B, bringing their total to $88 million. They serve over 8,000 paying customers, including Fortune 100 companies. Qodo raised $50 million. These aren't struggling startups. They're validated, well-funded, growing companies.

This isn't a criticism. This is validation.

It proves that AI-powered code review is valuable, that developers will pay for quality tools, and that there's a massive market here. CodeRabbit is excellent for teams with daily review needs and budget. Qodo's advanced testing features serve a real need. GitHub Copilot's integration is unmatched if you're in the Microsoft ecosystem.

But here's what the funding and success metrics hide: They're all optimizing for the same customer.

Every major player targets teams with consistent, high-volume review needs, budget for monthly SaaS commitments, 5+ developers (or willingness to pay for unused seats), and predictable, stable workloads.

Who's left out?

Developers who work solo or in pairs. Developers with variable review volumes. Developers building side projects and open source. Bootstrapped teams. Anyone who wants to try AI code review without monthly commitment.

76% of startups are self-funded. US freelancers increased 90% between 2020-2024. Startup team sizes dropped 45% from 6.4 employees (2022) to 3.5 employees (2024). The market is moving toward smaller, leaner teams. Pricing models haven't adapted.

Usage patterns tell a different story

We analyzed our own behavior and talked to developers in our target market.

The sporadic user: 5-20 reviews per month, pays $180-360 per year in subscriptions, gets $30-80 worth of value.

The burst worker: Intense periods (50 reviews/month) followed by quiet periods (5 reviews/month). Pays the same monthly rate regardless, averaging $5-15 per review.

The side project builder: Codes on weekends, 8-12 reviews per month. Cancels subscription when not actively coding, then re-subscribes. Friction kills consistency.

The pattern is clear: Usage doesn't match subscription cadence.

First renewal rates dropped 13% for annual subscriptions in 2023. 70% of consumers value the ability to pause or modify subscriptions without hassle. Developers are actively looking for alternatives to subscription overload.

The fairness problem

There's another issue we couldn't ignore: geographic inequality.

We found discussions from developers around the world reacting to GitHub Copilot's pricing:

Indonesia: "$10 can be used for 1 week's food"
Vietnam: "$10 = 250,000d, about 8 days of prepared lunch"
Turkey: "280 TL there should be regional pricing like Netflix, Steam games"

When we charge flat global rates, we're saying a developer in Jakarta should pay the same as a developer in San Francisco despite a 10x difference in purchasing power. Netflix and Steam figured this out years ago.

But beyond geography, there's a fundamental fairness question: Why should you pay for access when you should pay for value?

If we do 47 reviews for you in a month, we should charge you fairly for 47 reviews. If we do 5, you should pay for 5. You get value, you pay for that value, everyone's happy.

Pay for reviews, not seats

We built CodeReviewr around a simple principle: charge per token, not per developer.

No subscriptions: Pay only when you actually use AI code review
No seat licenses: Solo developer or 50-person team, same pricing
No premium tiers: Every review gets the same AI, same features, same quality
Transparent pricing: $5 free credits to start (10-30 reviews depending on complexity), then clear token-based pricing

Example: 47 reviews in a month costs $7. Not $180-360 like per-seat competitors.

Why tokens?

We chose token-based pricing because it aligns with actual AI costs. Running LLMs costs scale with consumption. Our costs are variable, so our pricing should be too.

It provides predictability. You can estimate costs per review based on your typical PR size.

It scales naturally. Review 5 PRs or 500 PRs, pricing scales fairly with usage.

It removes barriers. No minimum commitment means you can try it risk-free.

Is this perfect? No. Usage-based pricing has challenges. Developers worry about cost unpredictability and bill shock. We're addressing this with clear cost estimation, usage alerts, and transparent pricing.

The alternative, continuing to charge per seat regardless of usage, felt fundamentally unfair.

What we're building

CodeReviewr analyzes pull requests intelligently with bug detection, code improvement suggestions, and security issues. It integrates with GitHub seamlessly via OAuth in under 60 seconds. It provides actionable feedback, not nitpicky style comments, but meaningful insights. It works for any team size with no seat minimums.

But beyond features, we're building something else: a tool that respects your financial reality.

We know you're juggling subscriptions. We know budgets are tight. We know you need professional-grade code review but can't justify $30/month for sporadic use. We know you value fairness, transparency, and no-BS pricing.

Code review is critical. Developers spend 2+ days per week waiting for reviews, and reviews can detect 55-65% of latent defects. But access to good tools shouldn't require breaking the bank or committing to yearly contracts.

The philosophy behind it

We're developers first, founders second.

Tools should charge for value, not access. If we provide $10 of value, we should charge $1-2.50, not $30 just because you want to keep the option available.

Transparency builds trust. 45% of SaaS vendors hide their pricing behind "Contact Sales," and developers universally hate this. We publish our pricing publicly. No sales calls. No hidden enterprise tiers.

Small teams deserve great tools. The fact that you're not a 50-person VC-backed startup doesn't mean you should accept inferior tools or unfair pricing.

Usage patterns vary, pricing should too. Some months you ship constantly. Some months you plan. Subscriptions punish this natural rhythm.

Fair pricing is good business. If we treat you fairly, you'll stick around. If we nickel-and-dime you, you'll leave.

Who we're building for

We're not trying to replace CodeRabbit for teams that need enterprise features. We're not competing with GitHub Copilot's 20 million users. We're not going after Qodo's advanced testing capabilities.

We're building for the developers everyone else forgot.

The solo developer building a SaaS product at night. The two-person startup bootstrapping their way to profitability. The freelancer managing multiple client codebases. The indie hacker who needs professional code review but can't justify $360/year for 20 reviews per month.

You're 180,000+ freelance developers in the US alone. You're 50% of all developers working in small teams. You're 52% of developers coding on side projects. You're not a niche. You're half the market.

And you deserve tools that treat you fairly.

Why now?

Subscription fatigue is real and intensifying. The subscription fatigue solutions market is projected to grow from $1.3 billion to $9.8 billion by 2034. 61% of SaaS companies are testing or planning usage-based models. The industry is shifting toward consumption-based pricing because it's fundamentally fairer.

Developer tools need to recognize that pricing isn't merely about revenue. It's about driving the right behaviors and adoption patterns. Developers want transparency, fairness, and flexibility.

The current model leaves too many good developers without access to tools that could genuinely help them.

And honestly? We were tired of paying for seats we didn't use.

What's next

CodeReviewr is here. We're ready for you. We're starting with GitHub integration, pay-per-token pricing, and $5 in free credits (approximately 10-30 reviews depending on your code complexity).

No subscriptions. No seat licenses. No BS.

Just fair, transparent, pay-per-use AI code review for developers who value both quality and fairness.

If this resonates with you, we'd love to hear from you. What pricing models frustrate you? What would make you actually use AI code review tools? How can we build something that genuinely serves solo developers and small teams?

Drop us a line at [email protected] or follow our journey at codereviewr.app.

Here's to building tools that actually work for the way we work.

The CodeReviewr Team