Qodo

By Minel Gunesoglu, founder of Vouch. Everything below came out of documents rather than out of a trial of the product: I clicked Qodo's pricing cards open one at a time in a rendered browser, because the dollar figures are not in the page source at all; read the Terms of Use for the two clauses the extract carried verbatim; opened the G2 listing under both its old and its new brand slug; and corrected three claims our own records had made about a leaderboard row once I re-read the saved table. No repository of mine has been reviewed by Qodo, and no benchmark run of mine sits under any figure here. Published 16 August 2026, re-checked monthly.

Qodo's cheapest paid plan costs $30 a month, and the figure is not the thing that is wrong on the pages publishing it. The unit is. Third-party pricing pages for this product (the kind of small site that keeps one fresh enough to rank for the phrase), routinely render that $30 as a per-user, per-month rate. Eight were named in the research behind this review; at the time of writing an attempt to re-open each of them found several already gone or redirected, so the honest form of the claim is that the per-seat reading is what circulates, not that a particular count of pages carries it today. Qodo's own pricing page, read in a rendered browser on 16 August 2026, prices nothing by the user anywhere on it. Thirty dollars buys a pack of 2,500 credits pooled across the whole team, which the vendor estimates at about eighteen reviews a month. A team of five and a team of twenty-five pay the same $30 for the same pool.

A wrong unit is worth more attention than a wrong number, because a wrong number fails a spot-check and a wrong unit survives one. Read $30 per user, multiply by nine engineers, budget $270 a month, and the arithmetic is faultless on a premise that is not true, and nothing about $270 looks odd enough to send anyone back to the source. The mechanism is visible on the page itself. Those dollar amounts are not served in the HTML; each pack card has to be clicked before its price appears, so fetching that URL returns credit totals and no money at all. A scraper finds a credit count, finds no price, and the gap gets filled from whatever the last source said. That is a guess propagating rather than anybody making a claim, and it is why five figures for the same tier are in circulation ($15, $19, $30, $38 and $45), against exactly three the vendor publishes. Nor is there a strict census behind that paragraph: two direct attempts to read the live results page during the research pass were refused, and eight named pages is what the pass could account for.

What Qodo Is, and What Happened to CodiumAI

Qodo is an AI code-review platform sold by Codium Ltd., a company trading publicly as Qodo since September 2024 and branded CodiumAI before that. It reviews pull requests and generates tests, and the paid product is metered in credits rather than in seats. The test-generation half is the older of the two: it is what the CodiumAI extension was built to do, and nothing read for this page measures how well it works. The capability figure below converts a pull-request review benchmark and says nothing about generated tests, so if that is the half you are buying for, this card does not price it. This product has been renamed twice, once as a company and once across its whole product line, and a third company's name sits close enough to have caused trouble on its own. Sorting out which name means what comes before any figure here, because a renamed vendor is exactly where one company's record gets read into another's.

First, the old name is still load-bearing in the plumbing. G2's listing under the pre-rename slug redirects to the Qodo listing rather than resolving to a second profile, which makes the review count on that page one continuous record across the rename instead of a fresh one begun in 2024, and the page still prints the vendor as "By CodiumAI" under the product name. Second, the contracting party is not called Qodo. The Terms of Use read for this review name it as "CODIUM LTD. AND ITS AFFILIATES", trading as Qodo. Anyone matching an invoice or a supplier record against a signed agreement meets the old name, and that is a puzzling half-hour the first time and never again once somebody writes it down.

Qodo Merge and Qodo Gen: the Product Names That Folded Into One Platform

A second rename sits inside the first, and it catches anyone who last looked at this product a year ago. Qodo used to sell separately branded pieces. Qodo Merge for pull-request review, Qodo Gen for the editor, plus a command-line name and a context-engine name, and those have been folded into surfaces of one platform, with the vendor running a landing page that maps each retired name onto its replacement. The consequence for a buyer is narrow and useful. There is no separate Qodo Merge price and no separate Qodo Gen price to go hunting for; the credit packs below are the entire self-serve price list. Searching the old names mostly turns up third-party pages quoting plan structures the vendor's current page does not show.

Is Qodo the Same Company as Codeium? The Vendor Published Its Own Answer in 2023

No, and this is the one naming collision the vendor took on itself, in a post of its own dated 22 September 2023, a full year before the rename. Codeium is a different company working in a different corner of the market, and the post is unusually candid about the fallout: "The names sound identical, and both companies operate in the code generation domain, which understandably leads to mix-ups." It goes further than most vendors would, adding that "Users often praise one company while posting a screenshot of the other." One more name is worth ruling out while you are here: VSCodium, an unaffiliated open-source project that builds Visual Studio Code without its telemetry. It has no ownership tie to either company, and the resemblance is only in the spelling.

Two notes for anyone checking that quotation. The post argues under the earlier brand throughout, and the live page now rewrites that brand wherever it appears into a nested parenthetical carrying the new one; the two runs above were picked because neither contains a brand name and neither therefore needed unwinding. And the post says nothing at all about why the 2024 rename happened. A claim circulates that the company renamed itself to get clear of VSCodium, an unrelated open-source project; the vendor's own announcement was opened for this review on 16 August 2026 and searched: it mentions VSCodium nowhere, and the only reason it gives is that the name is "a confluence of two powerful concepts: 'Quality' and 'Code.'" That is a fact about the post, not proof of what was in anyone's mind. It appears here as a correction rather than a finding, because our own records carried the wrong version twice before anyone opened the primary source.

Qodo Pricing: $30 Buys 2,500 Credits for the Whole Team, Not a Seat

Every figure below came off Qodo's own pricing page in a rendered browser on 16 August 2026, one pack card at a time, since clicking is the only thing that makes a dollar figure appear. The rate is stated outright in the strip above the packs. "$.012/credit, pooled across the team", and each pack is priced at exactly that rate.

No monthly-versus-annual switch exists on that page, and its absence is the vendor's own statement rather than something this desk failed to find. The strip at the top reads "No annual commitment on Pro Team plan". The feature list under the packs says the same thing a second time. The plan table further down answers it a third, listing "Annual contracts & negotiated pricing" as not included on the self-serve tier and included on Enterprise. So the monthly figures above are the whole picture at this tier, not one of two views of it.

Three lines sit beside those packs and each tells a buyer something the prices do not. "Switch or add credit packs anytime" means the unit of scaling is another pack, not a plan upgrade. "Customer-set monthly overage cap" puts the spending ceiling in the buyer's hands, which is worth knowing before a finance conversation rather than after one. And "No rate limits" is a real trade rather than a giveaway: nothing throttles how fast a team burns its credits, so a heavy week is bounded by the pack and by the cap the customer set, not by an hourly ceiling. Standard support and strict data retention appear on the same tier with no further detail on the page as read.

Qodo Credits Explained: What $.012 a Credit Buys, and When a Pack Runs Out

Two of the vendor's numbers are enough to work out what a review costs: the per-credit rate, and the reviews-per-month estimate printed on each pack. Everything past those two is our arithmetic over them, said so plainly because it appears nowhere on the page as a sentence. Each pack price is exactly its credit count at the published rate: 2,500 credits at $.012 comes to $30, 5,000 to $60, 20,000 to $240, so the rate and the pack prices agree with each other, which not every credit system can say of itself. Divide each pack by its own estimate and all three land on the same figure: roughly $1.67 a review at the entry pack, and roughly $1.67 a review at the top self-serve pack. A bigger pack buys more reviews. It does not buy cheaper ones.

That flatness removes the usual reason to commit up front, and it draws a clean line under the entry pack. A team merging more than about eighteen pull requests a month has finished it, and the next unit of spend is a second pack rather than a different plan, which for four engineers merging a couple of pull requests each a week arrives inside the first sprint. Credits are also consumed by the editor and command-line surfaces rather than by review alone, so eighteen is a ceiling that assumes pull-request review is the only thing anyone does with the pool.

Does Qodo Have a Free Tier? A 14-Day Trial, an Open-Source Programme, and No Standing Free Plan

The vendor answers this itself, in a question-and-answer block on the pricing page: "We don't offer a permanent free tier. After your trial, pick a paid plan to keep reviewing." Third-party pages listing a standing free Developer plan with a monthly review allowance: thirty reviews a month is the figure most often quoted, sometimes with a note that it came down from seventy-five, are describing something that is not on the vendor's page as read on 16 August 2026. This review does not assert that no such plan ever existed. It reports what the page shows now, and what the vendor says now.

Two no-cost routes do exist, and printing "no free tier" without them would be a true fact leaving a false impression. The first is a 14-day trial with the card requirement waived and both reviews and credits marked unlimited, which is also what the pricing page's title is pointing at when it reads "Qodo Plans & Pricing | Free to Start". The second is a separate programme for open-source projects, in the vendor's own words: "Qualified open source projects can apply to the Qodo for Open Source program for free access." Qualified and apply are the operative words there. That is an application, not a tier you can select, and a maintainer should read it as a decision somebody else makes about their repository.

Qodo Enterprise Pricing, and the 30-User Line the Vendor Draws

The Enterprise card publishes no figure at all. It carries a label, "CUSTOM PLAN / FOR 30+ USERS", a button to book a demo, and a plan table marking annual and negotiated contracts as Enterprise-only. That is the entire disclosure, so a team above thirty engineers has no public anchor to budget against and will be repeating a number back from a sales call rather than reading one. The same table does answer a question a regulated buyer usually has to book a call to ask. Single sign-on and SAML, audit logs, bring-your-own-LLM-keys, single-tenant hosting and an on-premise or air-gapped deployment are each marked "Not included" on Pro Team and "Included" on Enterprise, as is a priority support SLA. Standard support sits on both. A team that needs any one of those controls is an Enterprise buyer by the vendor's own table, whatever its headcount, and can know that before the demo rather than during it.

This is also the boundary of everything above it, and it is a hard one. The pooled pack, the flat per-review cost, the absence of a seat: all of that describes the tier a team can buy without talking to anybody. How an Enterprise agreement is structured is not published, was not read for this review, and could be priced any way at all, per seat included. Nothing here supports the sentence "Qodo never prices per seat". What it supports is smaller and checkable: at the self-serve tier, the bill is set by the pack rather than by the head count.

Is Qodo Safe for Commercial Work? An Indemnity That Runs One Way, and Output Assigned Without Warranty

Qodo's Terms of Use were read on 16 August 2026 and carry a stamp of their own: "Last Updated: February 17, 2025". Two positions in that document are readable without a lawyer, and both belong in a rollout decision.

What the indemnity covers is stranger than which way it points. The clause reaches claims alleging that "the Customer Data, Input, Output or your use of the Services infringes or misappropriates a third party's intellectual property rights". Output, under this agreement, is what the platform generates from the customer's input, and on a code-review product, the tool's own suggestion. So the clause allocates to the customer a risk arising from text the tool produced. That is a description of the document's scope and not a conclusion about how a court would read it; the second question belongs to your own counsel, and a product review is not where it gets settled.

Market context has to travel with that finding or the finding misleads. A one-way indemnity is the ordinary shape of these agreements, not an outlier: of the twenty-five vendor contracts read for cards on this site when this page was built, nineteen allocate it the same way. Shown this clause on its own with nothing beside it, a reader will take ordinary for bad. What separates vendors in this corpus is the small minority whose contracts undertake to defend the customer, not the majority whose contracts leave that where this one does.

The ownership clause gives with one hand and declines to describe what it gave with the other, inside a single sentence. The company "shall assign to Customer all its right, title and interest in and to the Output, without making any representation or warranty as to the nature of such rights, title and interest". Read the verb and the disclaimer as one movement, because that is how the source writes them. Assigning transfers whatever the vendor holds rather than lending the use of it, and nothing in the clause makes the transfer conditional. What the same sentence withholds is any promise about the size of the parcel: the vendor declines, in terms, to say what those rights amount to. A buyer gets the transfer and carries the uncertainty about its contents. Quote the assignment alone and the protection is overstated; quote the disclaimer alone and it is understated. Both halves live in one sentence of the source, which is how they are printed here.

The commercial-terms cell of 81.3 is built from those two positions and normalised across them. A third position this desk scores elsewhere, whether a free tier may be used commercially, has nothing to attach to here, since there is no permanent free tier for terms to govern, so it leaves the calculation rather than scoring low. The document's refund and dispute-resolution language was not read in this pass. A summary of it produced by an automated fetch sits in our own records and is not evidence, so nothing about either is stated on this page, one way or the other. Anyone who needs a refund position in writing before signing should open those sections themselves; the silence here is deliberate rather than an oversight.

What the Qodo Community Record Shows, and How Much of It This Page Can Stand Behind

Two grades of evidence sit in this section and they are not interchangeable. The G2 figure below was read in a rendered browser and its bytes were saved, so anyone with the file can re-derive it. Everything after it (a first-hand write-up, two pricing reactions on a public forum, three bug reports and one security researcher's account) comes from a research sweep run on 16 August 2026 that opened each page directly and kept a copy of none of them. Those are links to go and read, not figures to lean on, and not one of them moves a cell on the card.

The record is also thinner than a results page makes it look, and the reasons are worth stating rather than smoothing over. Reddit returned no usable thread across roughly a dozen differently worded searches, and a direct fetch was refused before any response came back at all. Trustpilot and Gartner Peer Insights each refused every retrieval method attempted. Capterra's Qodo listing was reachable and carries no rating, and the AWS Marketplace listing shows none either. What remains is one substantial review aggregate, a handful of individual accounts, and an open issue tracker.

Where those individual accounts converge is on price rather than on output. On 12 August 2025, in the thread following the vendor's own announcement of a benchmark result, two commenters on Hacker News went straight at the credit model: one wrote that buying credits told him nothing about what he was getting and that he would pass, while a second asked for an individual tier sitting between whatever monthly allowance he then had and a team contract. A year on, the pricing page as read still has nothing between the trial and the team packs. A third reaction, on a developer blog in June 2025, takes the softer middle position: the output rated highly, the price named as a genuine deterrent, and it is the most useful of the three, because it separates what the product does from what it costs.

On what the product does, the record splits and stays split. The most detailed positive account is a developer who pointed the current review agent at one of his own pull requests and wrote up the result: five findings on a single pull request, among them a dependency conflict and a missing security attribute, none of which the diff itself displayed. That page carried only a day and a month with no year exposed when it was read, so no date is asserted for it here. Pulling the other way, a commenter describing his own team's trial in June 2026 rated the tools they had trialled below a reviewer they had built in-house, while allowing in the same comment that Qodo's approach looked more sophisticated and did things theirs did not. One person's pull request and one team's trial are not a measurement, and neither is offered as one.

The issue trackers add a third texture, and it is about connective tissue rather than review quality. Three reports filed on the vendor's own repositories, in June 2025, July 2026 and August 2026, describe an editor extension that broke copying while it ran, an authentication failure behind a corporate proxy where the bundled sign-in component ignored the proxy and failed without a visible error, and a parsing loop in a source-control integration where the tool's own generated descriptions could be re-read as user content and expand without bound. Each was open as filed on the day it was read for this review. The corporate-proxy case is the one to pilot deliberately, because an authentication failure that produces no error reads to everyone involved as the product simply not working.

Qodo's G2 Rating: 4.5 out of 5 on 102 Reviews, Read on a Profile That Asks for Them

G2's Qodo listing carried a 4.5-of-5 average over 102 reviews on 16 August 2026. Seeing it took a real browser: that platform turns away every automated retrieval method available to this desk, which is a standing condition rather than a surprise. The number in the rendered header and the number in the structured data the page publishes about itself agree exactly, on both the rating and the count, worth checking every time, because a figure that appears in only one of those two places is a figure to re-read before publishing.

Three things have to be said beside it. The listing solicits reviews, carrying a "Leave a Review" prompt on the page, and vendors run campaigns on that platform; that weakens a favourable number, and dropping the caveat precisely because the number is favourable would be selecting evidence rather than reporting it. The listing sits under a breadcrumb of "Secure Code Review Software", which is the right shelf rather than a general coding-assistant one, so the reviewers are describing roughly the product this page is about. And the count runs continuously across the 2024 rename, since the pre-rename URL redirects into it, which makes the sample deeper than a two-year-old brand would suggest and also means part of it describes an earlier product.

The Qodo Merge Pro Security Disclosure of January 2026, and What It Does Not Establish

Read access to private source code is what this product is granted in order to do its job, so a flaw in the vendor's own infrastructure belongs in a rollout decision rather than in a footnote. Kudelski Security published an account on 15 January 2026 describing how a crafted pull request could escalate through the configuration library used by Qodo Merge Pro, reaching a cloud access key that carried administrator permissions and, separately, code execution on the vendor's own application server. The researchers describe that exposure as reaching the repositories connected to the application.

Three things have to travel with that account. What was found is a reachable path, which is not the same as somebody walking it: the account describes no repository outside the researchers' own reaching, and asserting otherwise would need evidence this record does not contain. The fix arrived with the finding rather than after it: the sequence the researchers publish runs from the key leak and its patch in April 2025, through disclosure of the code-execution path in September 2025, to full remediation in October 2025, which makes the January 2026 write-up a record of a closed issue. And the class of problem is not peculiar to one vendor: a bot with read access to private repositories is a supply-chain surface by construction, and comparable disclosures have been published about more than one product in this category.

What is genuinely odd is how little it travelled. The single submission of that write-up to a large developer forum drew one point and no comments, and the sweep behind this page found no mention of it on any review platform. That quiet cuts both ways: a finding nobody discussed is also a finding nobody stress-tested. And it is what a partial sweep failed to turn up rather than proof that no discussion exists; three of the platforms most likely to carry it were unreachable the same day.

How Is Qodo's 68.8 Score Built? Four Cells, One of Them Resting on a Single Board

The card has no gaps in it. What deserves a reader's attention is narrower: one of these four cells rests on a single table published by one operator, and nothing else opened for this page carries a Qodo row to check it against.

Combined, the composite lands at 68.8 out of 100, or 3.4 on the five-point scale, in the band this site calls average. Multiplying the four rather than averaging them is a policy about what a directory score ought to reward, and on this card it bites: a firm contract cannot buy back a thin benchmark row, because a tool is only as useful as its worst dimension is tolerable. The spread runs from 50.0 to 85.5, which is wide, and a reader who cares about one end of that range is served far better by the row than by the total. What a card here rests on, and what it does not attempt applies to every tool this desk scores.

Three of those rows need a sentence about their construction. The capability figure is not the percentage the board prints, and the difference is the more interesting of the two numbers. F1 measured against real pull requests has no working ceiling at a hundred: on the day that table was read its eleven rows ran from 42.9% to 62.4%, with the middle of the field at 59.2%. Read as a mark out of a hundred, 53.6% would be reporting a tool that failed nearly half of something: when what it actually did was land in the lower half of a field where no product on the board cleared sixty-three. The cell therefore converts where the row stands among the tools measured beside it, which is how every arena-scored card on this site has always been built. Qodo sits below that field's middle, and 64.3 is what the distance comes to. The usability figure is not the raw rating either: put a 4.5-of-5 average on a hundred-point scale and it is 90, while the cell prints 85.5. That distance is a discount for sample depth, since a hundred and two opinions settle a direction and leave the precise level open, so a thin sample counts for less here than a thick one and 85.5 is what the discount leaves. The reading in the value row carries a caveat this page has spent a thousand words earning. It converts a $30 monthly entry price on the ladder this site reads a priced tool against, and that ladder assumes a price is a price. For a pooled pack, $30 means something entirely different to a solo developer than to a team of twenty-five, so the row flatters the small buyer and shortchanges the large one. The row measures the vendor's asking price against a fixed scale. Whether that price is worth paying depends on how many pull requests your team opens in a month, which is a question about your team and not about Qodo.

No row here answers the question a buyer actually has, which is whether this reviewer catches the things that break your build. Three of the four rows convert somebody else's artefact (a table, a pile of star ratings, a legal document), and the fourth converts a price list. And the row that comes closest to answering it is the one with the least behind it: a single table, read once, with no second measurement of this product anywhere to disagree with it.

Qodo's Martian Leaderboard Score: 53.6 F1 at the Default Setting, and the Column Where It Sits Higher

The capability cell comes from Martian's Code Review Bench, the only cross-vendor scoreboard opened for this review that puts Qodo and its named rivals through one method. Its online tracker is built from real pull requests these bots took part in, and the published method asks one question of each: "did the bot's suggestions lead to real code changes?" A suggestion somebody acted on counts. A correct suggestion nobody acted on does not. The score therefore measures what landed rather than what was right, which is worth holding onto when a percentage from it turns up in a sales deck.

The shape of Qodo's row is the reversal of the complaint this category usually attracts, and it only reads that way if two conditions travel with it. The table calls itself an "Overall online leaderboard balancing noise and thoroughness", and the balance is set by a slider on the left rail. "How important is it to avoid noise vs being thorough?", standing at its balanced default when this capture was taken. Push it toward thoroughness and the rows that catch more rise; push it the other way and the rows that interrupt less do. The second is the window: the table was showing a rolling last-month period, "Across 4,299 scored PRs", when it was read on 15 August 2026, and the operator's own chart of how positions have shifted makes plain that a row is a snapshot rather than a standing.

At that setting, on that date, Qodo's row reads 53.6% F1, 69.6% precision and 43.6% recall, ninth of eleven rows, over 431 scored pull requests, the fourth-largest per-tool sample the board published that day. Sort the two component columns separately and the picture turns over. On precision the row sits sixth of eleven, above five of them; on recall it sits ninth. Those sorts are our own reading of the saved table, not an order the board prints. Together they describe a reviewer that speaks up less often than most of this field and is more often right when it does, which is the reverse of the complaint usually attached to this category. Whether that is the trade you want turns on whether your team's failure mode is missing problems or ignoring warnings.

Two limits belong on that cell, and both are about having one source rather than two. No other independent board carrying a Qodo row surfaced among the documents opened for this page, so this is a single point of failure: if that table is wrong about this product, nothing else here would catch it. And the vendor runs a benchmark of its own, read 16 August 2026, whose summary states that "Qodo demonstrates the strongest overall performance among evaluated AI code review tools", on a page that names no competitor, prints no percentage anywhere in its text, and shows a reader no date at all. It enters no cell here. It is mentioned only so that a reader who meets it knows what it is.

Qodo Alternatives: Three Reviewers Named Without a Ranking, and an Open-Source Project That Moved Out

Of the names a reader is likely to cross-shop against this one, exactly one has been measured here the way Qodo has. CodeRabbit carries its own card on this site and prices its product by the seat on its published pricing page. Greptile and cubic.dev have no card here as this page is published, so nothing on it ranks either of them against anything at all. Their positions on that board are published by somebody else and can be read there; setting them beside a score card that never measured them would put two different kinds of measurement in one sentence and invite a conclusion neither of them supports. Every code-review tool this desk has scored sits on the category page, each card next to what it rests on.

One route a reader may be reaching for needs correcting, and our own records carried the older version of it until the morning this page was written. PR-Agent (the open-source pull-request reviewer whose branding the retired Qodo Merge name is historically tied to), is no longer inside Qodo's GitHub organisation. As read on 16 August 2026 the old repository path redirects to a repository under an organisation of its own, the project runs its own domain, and its description now states in as many words that the project is not the Qodo free tier. That is what the repository says on that date, and this page claims nothing past it: no reason for the move, no account of anyone's intentions, no characterisation of either party. Practically it means self-hosting that project is not a way of running Qodo for nothing, and any cost case built on the assumption that it is has lost its premise. Figures circulate for what self-hosting costs in model-API calls; none was verified against a saved copy of any page for this review, so none is printed here.

Is Qodo Worth Paying For? Who the Credit Pack Fits, and Who Should Wait

The most decision-relevant fact on this page is not the composite. It is that the bill does not scale with the team, which inverts the arithmetic most engineering leads are used to running: the more engineers share the pool, the smaller each one's share of the same $30. A team of fifteen merging steadily, where review is currently the step that gets skipped, is the clearest fit anywhere in this record, the pack cost is fixed, the cost per review is flat at every pack size, the customer sets the overage ceiling, and no hourly throttle sits underneath. The contract supports that reader as far as it goes, since output rights are assigned outright, and that assignment is the firmest thing in the document.

The reader who should wait is easier to name and gets less attention. A solo developer or a pair pays exactly what the team of fifteen pays for the same pool, and pooling is worth nothing with nobody to pool across. At roughly $1.67 a review with no permanent free tier underneath, the entry pack is the most expensive per head this product gets, and the request for something between the trial and the team packs has been on the public record since August 2025, and the pricing page as read still has nothing there. Anyone who needs a written refund position before signing should also wait, or go and read those clauses directly: this review did not read them, and publishing a summary produced by an automated fetch would be worse than publishing nothing.

Everyone in between is better served by the fourteen-day trial than by this page, and that is worth saying plainly. Both readings on this card that sample anyone's experience are shallow in different ways: a hundred and two solicited reviewers, and one leaderboard row with no second opinion behind it, while the two built from documents are the firm ones. An unlimited trial that costs nothing and asks for no card answers the question those two shallow rows cannot, in the only environment that matters, which is your repository rather than somebody else's. The credit prices and the leaderboard row are the fastest-decaying facts here; both get re-read at every refresh, and that board resets on a schedule nothing on this site controls.

Score card built and page written by Minel Gunesoglu, founder of Vouch — author profile. Eight documents sit behind this page and their bytes were saved: the pricing page with each pack clicked, the Terms of Use, the G2 listing and the vendor's 2023 post about the Codeium mix-up, all read 16 August 2026, plus the leaderboard table read a day earlier at its default setting. Disclosure: this site has no affiliate relationship with Codium Ltd., so every vendor link above is a plain one; affiliate links elsewhere on this site are marked, and a paid submission buys review speed only, never a listing and never a score.