Head to head · Verified 2026-10-26
Cursor BugBot vs Greptile
Greptile covers more of the baseline (4.5/9 vs 2.5/9), but the split matters more than the total. Everything below comes from each vendor's public documentation, mapped against the same 9 standards.
Cursor BugBot
AI PR Review
Cursor's PR reviewer scoped to bugs, security issues, and rule violations, billed per run (avg $1.00-1.50) since June 2026.
- Licence
- Proprietary
- Self-hosting
- Cloud only
- From
- $30/mo (Cursor Premium)
Greptile
AI PR Review
AI code reviewer that indexes the whole codebase into a graph; its TREX agent writes and runs tests for PRs in a sandbox.
- Licence
- Proprietary
- Self-hosting
- Enterprise only
- From
- $1/credit (Pro, no seat fee)
The short answer
Across the 9 standards, Cursor BugBot is better documented on 1 (rule control), Greptile on 4 (local and PR review, learning from your team, sandbox validation and actionable fixes), and 4 come out even.
On deployment they are not interchangeable: Cursor BugBot is cloud-only, while Greptile is self-hostable only on an enterprise contract. If code cannot leave your network, that single row decides the evaluation before anything else on this page.
Pick Cursor BugBot if you care most about rule control.
Pick Greptile if you care most about local and PR review, learning from your team and sandbox validation.
Side by side
| Fact | Cursor BugBot | Greptile |
|---|---|---|
| Licensing | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Self-hosting • | No | Enterprise only |
| Free tier • | No free tier | Limited free tier |
| Pricing • | Usage-based, avg $1.00-1.50 per run; included from the Premium plan ($30/mo) up (Free and Plus plans exclude BugBot), billed against plan usage; not sold standalone | Free Starter: 50 credits/mo (1 dev), unlimited repos; Pro: pure pay-per-credit at $1/credit, no seat fees, unlimited devs/agents, credits prepaid and shared org-wide (14-day free trial); Base review 1 credit, Plus review 3 credits, Apex review 10 credits; TREX test-run +3 credits on top of a review (charged only if a flow completes); Enterprise custom; OSS and startup programs |
| Model control • | No BYOK or model choice; selectable effort levels only | Fixed vendor models; no BYOK on standard (cloud) plans; self-hosted deployments configure their own LLM provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, AWS Bedrock, Azure OpenAI, or GCP Vertex AI) |
| Platforms • | GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps | GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket |
| Last verified • | 2026-10-21 | 2026-10-26 |
• marks a row where the two genuinely differ.
All 9 standards
✓ documented · ~ partial · ✗ not offered · ? undocumented. The arrow marks which tool documents more on that standard — it is not a quality judgement, only a coverage one.
Cursor BugBot: Reviews the diff plus rule files, surrounding code, and the PR comment thread; no codebase index.
Greptile: Graph index of the full codebase gives deep cross-file context; ticket/business context is not a focus.
Cursor BugBot: Path-scoped .cursor/BUGBOT.md rules plus org-wide team rules; deliberately quiet, bug-only scope.
Greptile: Plain-English custom rules on Pro; community reports on default precision/noise are mixed.
Cursor BugBot: PR-only reviewer; 'Fix in Cursor' hands findings to the editor, but there is no local review mode.
Greptile: PR-focused; MCP, Claude Code plugin, and one-click IDE fixes exist, but no local review surface documented.
Cursor BugBot: No ticket or process integrations - deliberately out of scope.
Greptile: Focus is code-side context rather than ticket-side; no requirements validation documented.
Cursor BugBot: Generates learned repo rules from team activity; reads existing PR comments to avoid duplication.
Greptile: Learns team standards by reading your PR comments over time.
Cursor BugBot: No documented sandbox execution or test generation; static diff analysis with effort levels.
Greptile: TREX writes and runs tests for each PR in a sandbox to demonstrate bugs (+3 credits on top of the review, charged only if a test flow completes).
Cursor BugBot: No BYOK or model pinning; per-run cost (~$1.00-1.50) is visible but models are Cursor-selected.
Greptile: No BYOK or model choice on standard plans; credit billing does not expose model costs.
Cursor BugBot: 'Fix in Cursor' opens findings in the editor with context; no one-click commit from the PR itself.
Greptile: One-click IDE fixes and /greploop iterative resolution with coding agents.
Cursor BugBot: Cursor reports ~80% resolution rates for itself; customer-facing ROI dashboards not documented.
Greptile: No review-metrics or ROI dashboards documented in the sources we verified.
Cursor BugBot vs Greptile: FAQ
What is the main difference between Cursor BugBot and Greptile?
Greptile covers more of the baseline (4.5/9 vs 2.5/9), but the split matters more than the total. Cursor BugBot is cloud-only and proprietary; Greptile is self-hostable only on an enterprise contract and proprietary.
Is Cursor BugBot cheaper than Greptile?
Cursor BugBot starts at $30/mo (Cursor Premium) and Greptile at $1/credit (Pro, no seat fee), as published by each vendor on 2026-10-21 and 2026-10-26. Compare total cost rather than seat price: Cursor BugBot bills models as no byok or model choice; selectable effort levels only, Greptile as fixed vendor models; no byok on standard (cloud) plans; self-hosted deployments configure their own llm provider (openai, anthropic, aws bedrock, azure openai, or gcp vertex ai).
Can Cursor BugBot and Greptile be self-hosted?
Cursor BugBot: No — Connects to self-hosted git (GHES, GitLab self-managed, Bitbucket Data Center) but the review service is SaaS-only. Greptile: Enterprise only — Self-hosted deployment (Docker Compose or Kubernetes, license required) on custom-priced Enterprise tier, alongside SOC 2 Type II and SSO/SAML.
Do Cursor BugBot and Greptile support the same platforms?
Both document support for GitHub, GitLab and Bitbucket. Cursor BugBot additionally documents Azure DevOps; Greptile adds nothing else.
Which one scores higher against the 9-pillar standard?
Greptile scores 4.5/9 against 2.5/9. The score is coverage of documented capability, not quality of findings — the full formula is on the methodology page.
[ Related comparisons ]
Neither is an obvious fit?
Filter all 27 tools by the constraint that actually rules candidates out.