Software Alternatives, Accelerators & Startups

PullRequest.com VS Reviewable

Compare PullRequest.com VS Reviewable and see what are their differences

PullRequest.com logo PullRequest.com

Code review as a service

Reviewable logo Reviewable

GitHub code review platform.
  • PullRequest.com Landing page
    Landing page //
    2022-06-06

PullRequest combines automation with a network of on-demand reviewers from companies like Google, Dropbox, and Amazon. With thousands of expert reviewers, we can review projects of any size or technical area. Integrated directly into GitHub, Bitbucket, and Gitlab.

  • Reviewable Landing page
    Landing page //
    2019-01-03

PullRequest.com

$ Details
paid Free Trial $99.0 / Monthly (for individual developers)
Platforms
iOS Android C C++ .Net PHP Objective-C Magento Erlang Scala Elixir TypeScript Go Swift Groovy Ruby Perl JavaScript Java Python

PullRequest.com features and specs

  • Expert Code Reviewers
    PullRequest.com provides access to a network of experienced code reviewers with expertise in various programming languages and technologies, ensuring that your code is thoroughly and insightfully reviewed.
  • Improved Code Quality
    By leveraging professional code reviewers, the platform helps enhance code quality by identifying potential bugs, suggesting improvements, and ensuring adherence to coding standards.
  • Scalability
    The service can scale with your team's needs, whether you require sporadic code reviews for small projects or consistent evaluations for large development teams.
  • Time-Saving
    Outsourcing code reviews can save developers and teams significant time, allowing them to focus on other important tasks and speeding up the development process.
  • Objective Feedback
    External reviewers can provide unbiased, objective feedback without internal team dynamics influencing the review process, leading to more open and honest evaluations.

Possible disadvantages of PullRequest.com

  • Cost
    Using PullRequest.com may introduce additional expenses, which could be a concern for startups or companies with limited budgets compared to in-house reviews.
  • Security Concerns
    Sharing code externally may raise security concerns, especially for companies handling sensitive or proprietary information, despite security measures in place.
  • Integration Overhead
    Integrating an external review process into existing workflows may require adjustments, which could initially disrupt established development processes.
  • Variable Quality
    While many reviewers are highly skilled, the quality of reviews can vary depending on the reviewer assigned, potentially leading to inconsistent review quality.
  • Limited Context
    External reviewers may lack full context of the project details and organizational goals, which might impact the relevance of their suggestions compared to an in-house team.

Reviewable features and specs

  • Detailed Review Process
    Reviewable offers a highly customizable review process that allows teams to define their own criteria for code reviews. This flexibility can enhance the quality of code by ensuring thorough checks and balances.
  • Integration with GitHub
    The platform integrates seamlessly with GitHub, which is beneficial for developers already using GitHub as their primary code repository. This integration enables streamlined workflows without the need to switch between multiple tools.
  • Real-time Collaboration
    Reviewable supports real-time collaboration, allowing team members to see changes and comments as they happen. This feature can enhance communication and the speed of the review process.
  • Advanced Commenting Features
    The tool offers advanced commenting features, such as single-threaded discussions and the ability to mark issues as resolved, which can help keep feedback organized and clear.
  • High Customizability
    Users can tailor the review process with various configurations, such as review state tracking and custom checklists. This customizability allows teams to adapt the tool to their workflow needs.

Possible disadvantages of Reviewable

  • Complex Setup
    The initial setup of Reviewable can be complex and time-consuming, especially for teams not familiar with configuring such tools. This can create a steep learning curve for new users.
  • Cost
    Reviewable is a paid service, and the cost can be a concern for small teams or individual developers, especially when considering other free or cheaper code review options.
  • Limited to GitHub
    As Reviewable is designed specifically for use with GitHub, teams using other version control systems like GitLab or Bitbucket won't be able to integrate the tool into their workflows.
  • Overwhelming Feature Set
    While Reviewable offers numerous features, this extensive set can be overwhelming for new users who may not need all of the functionalities, leading to potential underutilization.
  • User Interface Complexity
    Some users may find the user interface complex, with a high amount of information displayed at once. This can make it difficult to navigate for those who prefer simpler, more straightforward interfaces.

PullRequest.com videos

No PullRequest.com videos yet. You could help us improve this page by suggesting one.

Add video

Reviewable videos

Reviewable -- what is the fastest way to check out your review code?

Category Popularity

0-100% (relative to PullRequest.com and Reviewable)
Developer Tools
45 45%
55% 55
Code Coverage
100 100%
0% 0
Code Collaboration
0 0%
100% 100
Tech
100 100%
0% 0

User comments

Share your experience with using PullRequest.com and Reviewable. For example, how are they different and which one is better?
Log in or Post with

Social recommendations and mentions

Based on our record, Reviewable seems to be a lot more popular than PullRequest.com. While we know about 21 links to Reviewable, we've tracked only 2 mentions of PullRequest.com. We are tracking product recommendations and mentions on various public social media platforms and blogs. They can help you identify which product is more popular and what people think of it.

PullRequest.com mentions (2)

  • Ask HN: Co-Founder? Seeking Co-Founder?
    I am a tech guy. Have 15+ years experience building backend systems. Now, I build user facing websites/services and release them. I have no knowledge of marketing/sales, so if you are a non tech guy who wants to do some fun projects, hit me up. Email in profile. Currently, I am working on a website where people can post their code and ask for feedback. (Something http://pullrequest.com/) Note that these are mostly... - Source: Hacker News / over 3 years ago
  • Anyone has previously hired a programmer on Fiverr?
    Reviewing the code will be another hurdle for you. If you don't stay on top of this you will end up with an expensive POS. Maybe your friend can just do the code reviews for a cut? Otherwise, try something like pullrequest.com (code review as a service). Source: almost 5 years ago

Reviewable mentions (21)

  • A list of SaaS, PaaS and IaaS offerings that have free tiers of interest to devops and infradev
    Reviewable.io โ€” Code review for GitHub repositories, free for public or personal repos. - Source: dev.to / over 2 years ago
  • The GitHub for Code Review UI Needs Serious Innovation
    Yep, I agree! I work at, and use, Reviewable (https://reviewable.io) and we're the best way to review code on GitHub because we've focused on making the whole process better at every step. We've improved diffing, not only for large files (we support larger files than GitHub does) but also for understanding that diff. Have you ever reviewed a PR twice, but the second time around all your comments are gone and you... - Source: Hacker News / almost 3 years ago
  • Software Engineering at Google
    Https://reviewable.io is the earliest full-powered Critique alternative for GitHub. It supports some cool things Critique doesn't/didn't, such as reviewing multi-commit branches (also across history-rewriting force-push cleanups), and indicating exactly the nature of your comment (just FYI, or you want this to be changed before you'll give your approval). (I was an intern in the initial making of Critique, and... - Source: Hacker News / almost 3 years ago
  • Codereview: Should the Go project stop importing GitHub PRs?
    The linux kernel, which is open source and does want contributors, is doing more-or-less just fine with an email-based PR and review flow. If it's an open source project, it should be using an open source review platform that allows improvements and specialization of the code hosting too. Using github, where the review tools are bad and can't be improved by an outsider, is a slap in the face to open source.... - Source: Hacker News / about 3 years ago
  • Show HN: Visibly โ€“ More Collaborative and Efficient Code Reviews on GitHub
    >See reviewer presence so that you can see if someone is already reviewing and avoid unnecessary pings. >Visibly values privacy and security above all else These two things seem squarely at odds. Personally, I don't want my code review tool announcing to developers when I'm looking at their PR. The fact that it's a Chrome extension would also be a big blocker for me. I run a dev team, and I wouldn't... - Source: Hacker News / about 3 years ago
View more

What are some alternatives?

When comparing PullRequest.com and Reviewable, you can also consider the following products

Codacy - Automatically reviews code style, security, duplication, complexity, and coverage on every change while tracking code quality throughout your sprints.

Atlassian Crucible - Collaborative peer code review tool.

CodeRabbit - Unleash AI on Your Code Reviews with CodeRabbit

codebeat - Automated code review for Swift

Review Board - Stress-free code review for teams of all sizes

Refactor.io - Share your code instantly for refactoring and code review