Graphite vs Kilo: Choosing Your AI Code Review Platform

The AI Code Review Platform Decision

TLDR: Kilo positions itself against Graphite for AI code reviews, emphasizing model flexibility (500+ options vs Claude-only), per-token pricing versus seat-based costs, and integration into a broader agentic engineering platform.

The AI code review space is heating up, and Kilo has published a direct comparison with Graphite that highlights genuine architectural differences in how these tools approach the problem.

Graphite, now acquired by Cursor, takes the focused tool approach. It bolts onto your existing GitHub workflow and uses Claude for reviews. You get a polished experience for one specific job - code reviews and stacked PRs. The pricing is seat-based at forty dollars per user per month for unlimited AI reviews on the Team plan.

Kilo argues this model has problems. First, model lock-in: when Graphite picks Claude, you're stuck with whatever version they've configured. You can't switch to a faster, cheaper model for routine PRs or a more capable model for security-critical code. Second, the pricing structure means light users subsidize heavy users - you pay the same whether you review ten PRs or a thousand.

Kilo's counter-proposal is model flexibility with token-based pricing. Choose from over 500 models depending on the task. Need quick feedback on a straightforward PR? Use a lightweight model. Reviewing infrastructure code? Switch to something more capable. The per-token pricing means you pay for actual usage rather than seat counts.

The platform integration angle is interesting. Graphite is a dedicated review tool - everything else in your workflow lives elsewhere. Kilo embeds reviews into a broader platform that includes cloud agents, deployment, and app building. Whether that's better depends on whether you want best-of-breed tools or an integrated suite.

For architects evaluating these options, the real questions are: How important is model flexibility to your team? Do your usage patterns fit seat-based pricing or would token-based pricing save money? And are you comfortable with Graphite's future being tied to Cursor's roadmap post-acquisition?

The review customization options are worth noting. Kilo offers preset review styles (Strict, Balanced, Lenient), configurable focus areas (security, performance, style), and custom instructions for team conventions. This level of control matters for teams with specific quality gates.

Key takeaways:

• Graphite locks you to Claude; Kilo offers 500+ model options
• Seat-based pricing ($40/user) vs per-token pricing changes economics significantly
• Graphite acquisition by Cursor ties its roadmap to Cursor's priorities
• Kilo integrates reviews into broader agentic engineering platform
• Review customization (styles, focus areas, custom rules) available in both

Tradeoffs:

• Gain model flexibility with Kilo but sacrifice the focused, polished experience of a dedicated tool
• Choose seat-based pricing for predictability or token-based for pay-per-use efficiency

Link: Graphite vs Code Reviews in Kilo

This summary was generated based on newsletter content. Always verify technical details against official documentation before implementation.