Comparison
Two things separate SourceAnt from the tools you are probably comparing it against, and neither of them changes when a vendor ships a feature next quarter. Their price grows with your team while the work does not. And their review stops at the edge of the repository the pull request was opened in.
Sourcegraph, and SourceAnt
Where is this code, and what calls it?
SourceAnt indexes and searches code too, and serves it to your tools. Sourcegraph does it at a scale we do not claim to match. Where we differ is what happens next: search returns where the code is, and where the code is was never the part that was hard.
graphify, codegraph
What shape is this code, right now?
Parse the tree deterministically and hand back a graph of symbols and calls. SourceAnt now does this locally too, but keeps one central store and connects the result to durable knowledge and architecture.
SourceAnt
What did we decide, what depends on what, and is that still true?
Parts that are not code at all, like a queue or a datastore. The decisions and contracts that constrain them. A record of who approved each one, and when it aged.
Every row is something one of these does and another does not, rather than a scorecard. A blank is a design choice, not a gap.
| SourceAnt | Sourcegraph | graphify | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviews across repositories | yes | not a reviewer | not a reviewer |
| Names what it could not read | yes | not applicable | not applicable |
| Operates on | Code, systems, requirements, contracts, decisions | Files and symbols | Files and symbols |
| Models a queue or a datastore | yes | no | no |
| Holds decisions and constraints | yes | no | no |
| Holds knowledge that is not about code | yes | no | no |
| Boundary it stores under | any scope you define | the repository | the folder you ran it on |
| Approval state on an entry | proposed, approved, retired | not applicable | not applicable |
| Tells you when it has gone stale | yes | no | re-run it |
| Evidence on every edge | file, manifest, revision | the code itself | extracted or inferred tag |
| Runs fully local | yes, with one central index | on-premise available | yes, per repository |
| Served over MCP | yes | yes | yes |
| Priced on | repositories and analysis, never seats | seats | platform in early access |
| Open source core | MIT, open core | enterprise product | Apache 2.0 |
Checked September 2026 against each product’s own documentation and pricing. Sourcegraph moved Cody to enterprise plans for new signups in July 2025. The graphify platform is in early access ahead of its public v1. SourceAnt is MIT licensed at the core and now includes local code indexing, durable knowledge, system architecture, cross-repository review, and MCP serving. The code graph underneath it is codebase-memory-mcp, which we build on rather than reimplement. If something here has changed, tell us and it gets corrected.
The bill
We compare on pricing model rather than on features, because a feature list is out of date the week after it is written and a billing model almost never changes. Every tool below charges for each engineer who might read a review. SourceAnt charges for the analysis it runs, so engineers and agents are free.
CodeRabbit
~$24
per developer, per month
annual billing
Greptile
~$30
per seat, per month
50 reviews included, then more
Qodo
~$30
per user, per month
Teams plan
cubic
$30-99
per developer, per month
no free tier
| Engineers | Per seat, a month | SourceAnt Starter |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | $72 to $90 | $49 |
| 10 | $240 to $300 | $49 |
| 25 | $600 to $750 | $49 |
| 50 | $1200 to $1500 | $49 |
Per-seat figures checked September 2026 against each vendor's own published pricing, taken at the lowest team tier each one offers. The SourceAnt column is the Starter platform fee, which covers unlimited engineers and agents; it moves when your repository count or monthly analysis moves, never when your headcount does. Model usage is separate on both sides, and is nothing from us when you bring your own keys. If any of this has changed, tell us and it gets corrected.
The category gap
A rule about what may never go in an analytics event. A constraint the regulator put on you. A goal the quarter is being run against. A convention two teams agreed in a meeting. None of that is in a file, so a tool that parses files has nowhere to put it, and the engineer who needed it never finds it.
This is not a roadmap item, it is how the core is built. A knowledge record carries an identity, a kind, a status, a summary, and its properties. It has no repository field and no file field. Nothing in the model assumes the knowledge is about code. A scope is a set of key and value pairs you define, so a team or an organisation is a boundary you can use today.
A wiki can hold the same sentence. It cannot tell you the rule was superseded last quarter, and it cannot hand your assistant the records that bear on the change being made.
None of these are bad ideas. Each one solves a piece and leaves the same hole.
They sit where the reader already is, which is their whole advantage. They also die with the line they are attached to, cannot be queried, and nobody reviews whether they are still true.
The right instinct, written down at the right moment. Then the code moves and the ADR does not, and there is no link between the decision and the thing it was about.
Good at finding text that reads like your question. It has no notion of whether a decision is current, superseded, or was overturned last quarter, so it returns all three with equal confidence.
They read the diff, comment, and forget. Every pull request starts from zero, the reasoning never accumulates, the review stops at the repository boundary, and the bill grows with the team rather than with the work.
Straight answers
A comparison page that concludes you should buy the thing is not a comparison page.
Sourcegraph is built for that scale and we are not going to pretend otherwise. Come to us when the question stops being where the code is and starts being what it may not break.
Install graphify. SourceAnt keeps its local indexes in one central store instead of writing an artifact into every checkout.
The people who know why are in the room. Come back when the why starts leaving with them.
Point it at the repositories you already have. The graph, the endpoints, and the inference are open source, so the first answer costs you nothing but an afternoon.
