Cubic vs Ironwood AI
Cubic
cubic.devIronwood AI
ironwoodsolutions.aiSide by side
| Figure | Cubic | Ironwood AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price from | $30/mo | $15/mo |
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Free trial | Yes | Yes |
| Open source | — | — |
| Web | Yes | Yes |
| Windows | Yes | Yes |
| macOS | Yes | Yes |
| Linux | Yes | — |
| API | Yes | — |
| Self-hosted | — | Yes |
| Plans published | 13 | 4 |
| Spec score · AI Code Review Tools | 9.3 (#2) | 8.3 (#13) |
| Review context | cubic checks pull requests against the full codebase and team rules, including changes that may break code elsewhere. | Teams can provide coding standards, architecture documents, requirements, and technical guidance as review context. |
| Support | The Pro and Max plans include premium support and a shared Slack channel with cubic engineers, while Enterprise offers dedicated support. | Ironwood can generate a sanitised support bundle for review before sharing; its support workflow is designed not to automatically upload source code or provider credentials. |
| What it does | Cubic reviews GitHub pull requests with repository-wide context and scans complete codebases for bugs, vulnerabilities and regressions. | Ironwood reviews code using selected AI providers and engineering context, with findings and evidence for engineers to inspect. |
Plans
Cubic
- StarterFree
- Starter FreeFree
- Team$30 a month
- Team$30 a month
- Team$40 a month
- Pro$79 a month
- Pro$79 a month
- Pro$99 a month
- Max$160 a month
- Max$160 a month
Ironwood AI
- EvaluationFree
- Professional$15 a month
- Team$200 a month
- EnterprisePriced on request
In their own words
Cubic
Cubic reviews pull requests with AI and scans codebases for bugs and security issues. It checks proposed changes against the wider codebase and team rules, including possible effects on other code, and learns from senior developers’ past comments and team feedback. The workflow can auto-approve low-risk pull requests, assign a merge confidence score from 1 to 5, and let coding agents fix findings. Cubic supports GitHub, including GitHub Enterprise Cloud; GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab and Bitbucket are not supported yet. It describes itself as language-agnostic and lists JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, Go, Ruby, Java and C# among supported languages. Starter Free allows 20 reviews a month for public repositories. Team costs $30 a month billed yearly per developer; Pro is 79.00 USD and Max is $160 a month, also billed yearly per developer. For pull requests with more than 200 eligible files, Cubic selects up to 200 for review. Reviews pause after a team exceeds its line allowance unless an admin enables flex capacity at $20 per 10,000 extra lines.
Ironwood AI
Ironwood AI reviews code using AI providers selected by the team, along with engineering context such as coding standards, architecture documents, requirements, and technical guidance. Engineers can inspect findings and supporting evidence before deciding what to do. Teams can review multiple repositories in a batch, including cross-repository analysis when service boundaries matter. Listed AI providers include OpenAI, Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini, and Ollama; source-control integrations include GitHub, Azure DevOps, and Bitbucket. Jira, Azure Boards, and Confluence are listed for delivery workflows. Ironwood runs on infrastructure controlled by the customer, with local Admin, Reviewer, and Viewer roles; customers manage source-control and AI-provider credentials. Hosted AI providers receive review prompts and selected code or context, while Ollama can keep the AI request inside customer infrastructure. Ironwood says it does not need to receive or store source code, prompts, or findings to run a review. Professional includes PDF reports, role-based access control, platform health, and diagnostics. Evaluation is free for 30 days for two developers and one installation. Professional costs $15 a month; Team is $200 a month for up to 20 developers. AI-provider usage is billed separately.