Comparison

Keep the tools you like.
Add code connections and local checks.

Roam gives your agent a local code index and free static checks. It can query callers, investigate algorithm choices, and check a patch's connections without building each analysis from scratch. Refresh the index as code changes. Use the results alongside your reviewer and tests. Vendor tables were last checked : not a current buying guide. See the sources and limits.

Set up your agent for free Try a known function · Architecture · Governance · Pricing

Different tools, connected jobs

Writing code, reviewing a patch, and tracing connections across a project are different jobs. A tool may help with more than one.

Coding agent "Help me write code." Your agent works on the task: reading files, proposing edits, and running tools. Roam supplies analysis it can query during that work. The agent's model, permissions, and workflow remain your choice.
Review tool "Does this PR make sense?" Review a proposed change against its intended behavior and the project's rules. Code connections and static findings can inform that review; they do not establish that the behavior is correct.
Roam's local analysis "Where should my agent look, and what should it check?" Roam. A local index of code connections and free static checks, used by agents through the CLI or MCP. Investigate callers, complexity, duplicate code, and architecture. Runtime traces, if imported, are separate observations. Configured evidence workflows can save a record of checks, including missing evidence.
Local code-graph tools "Give my agent the code and its connections." This is a real overlapping category: tools can expose a repository index, callers, dependencies and change impact through MCP or a CLI. Roam belongs in this comparison too. Check the actual language support, resolution limits and workflow of each tool, not just its category.

Your agent can consult Roam throughout a task: use indexed connections to choose files to read, investigate a detected pattern, or check what a patch may affect. These answers remain useful even when no defect is found. Static checks run locally without model calls; your agent's model usage is separate. A separate tier of MCP gateways (Lasso, Portkey, Interlock) sits between the agent and its tools; Roam emits evidence such gateways can consume — they are not direct comparisons. Follow a worked example: the command-by-command walkthrough walks install → health → preflight → critique → a configured ChangeEvidence packet. Installation and parser downloads need network access; analysis runs locally. See the data paths for connected agents and optional features.

Compare the work each graph tool supports.

Local graph tools also answer useful questions about code. In the documentation checked on , CodeGraph describes an MCP tool that returns source, call paths and a blast-radius summary. trace-mcp describes a local graph and agent tools, as well as workflow integration. These are overlapping capabilities, not products we have ruled out or benchmarked against Roam.

Roam combines indexed relationships with code-pattern checks, architecture analysis, candidate algorithmic alternatives, patch checks, and optional records of the evidence collected. The distinction is this combination of work you can call on—not a claim that other graph tools only navigate code or cannot grow beyond it.

  • Before an edit: query context and callers, inspect likely test candidates, and run preflight to plan the change.
  • When choosing an implementation: inspect a detected pattern and catalogued alternative; test behavior and measure before calling it an improvement.
  • After an edit: refresh the index, review the intended diff with critique, and run the project's actual tests. A configured evidence flow records collected checks and missing evidence.

Compare tools on one question in your repository: inspect the returned source locations, missed connections, index refresh cost and the work left for your agent. Our measurement record separates reproducible examples, historical comparisons and unknowns. The descriptions above are vendor documentation, not an installed-product evaluation, accuracy ranking, or exclusive-capability matrix.

Four questions to ask about a change

These questions overlap, and a tool can help with several of them. Roam's structural and algorithmic analyses are static checks too: they inspect code without running your application. Choose checks that fit the change, then test the behavior that matters.

1. Semantic Does the code make sense? Check intended behavior, error paths, and assumptions. Use code review and tests; a structural finding alone cannot answer this.
2. Rules and security Does it violate rules? Apply the project's lint rules and security checks. Inspect what each check covers and investigate its findings.
3. Structural What else does it touch? Roam. Reads the diff as a graph mutation: callers, related tests, similar code, and layer violations. Static connections can be incomplete; suggested tests still need to run.
4. Algorithmic Which patterns deserve a performance check? Roam. Deterministic detectors for O(n²) nested-loop lookups, N+1 queries, regex compiled in hot loops, repeated JSON parses, quadratic string concat, branching recursion without memoisation. These are leads, not proof of slow code or a safe optimization. Inspect the source, test, and measure.

Use Roam's code connections and algorithmic findings alongside your reviewer, linters, security checks, and tests. The local CLI and MCP tools are free. Hosted Roam Review is planned, not available to subscribe to; its published tiers are proposals, not an active service.

Dated comparison: review tools

This table retains the June 12, 2026 review of CodeRabbit, Greptile, Qodo, SonarQube, and Roam. It compares individual capabilities rather than assigning each tool an exclusive job. Vendor sources and shared footnotes appear below; send corrections through the methodology section.

Roam CodeRabbit Greptile Qodo SonarQube
Reviews what the code touches (callers, layers, cycles) Yes Limited Limited Limited Yes
Reviews what the code does (semantics) Limited Yes Yes Yes Limited
Related copies left unchanged by a patch Flags candidates using persisted duplicate-code results; not proof of a bug Not advertised Not advertised Not advertised Not advertised
Local analysis option Yes; no automatic source upload. Agent providers and selected features have separate data paths. Cloud* Cloud* Cloud* Yes (paid)
Tamper-evident review attestations (in-toto v1, cosign-verifiable) Optional configured workflow; recorded checks may be incomplete Not advertised Not advertised Not advertised Not advertised
Exposes the code graph to agents via MCP Yes (server)*** Consumes MCP*** Consumes MCP*** Enterprise tier*** Yes (Oct 2025)***
Open source Apache 2.0 No No No Community ed.
Free tier for individuals Yes, forever Free tier Trial + OSS Developer tier Community ed.
Starting price (team tier) Free CLI/MCP. Hosted Review: proposed from $99/mo flat; not available to subscribe to. $24/dev/mo** $30/seat/mo + usage $30/user/mo** from $32/mo (LOC-based)

*self-host or private deployment is vendor-specific and generally enterprise-scoped; **annual billing where listed (Qodo lists $38 monthly / $30 annual); ***Roam exposes the code graph as an MCP server (agents call roam tools directly); CodeRabbit lists MCP connections, Greptile lists external-app connections, Qodo lists Enterprise MCP tools, and SonarQube ships an MCP server plus Cloud-native MCP.

Dated comparison: coding agents

These are the coding tools included in the June 12, 2026 source review. Their interfaces and deployment options vary. Roam supplies analysis that an agent can call through the CLI or MCP; the rows below retain the dated account, data-path, and capability comparisons.

Roam Cursor Cody Aider Windsurf Continue Sweep Claude Code
Primary surface CLI + MCP IDE IDE + web CLI IDE + JetBrains IDE-agnostic JetBrains IDE CLI agent
Credentials required None for local analysis Account + LLM tokens Enterprise contract1 LLM API key (BYOK) Account BYOK + OAuth Account Anthropic API key
Network egress required Static analysis is local. Parser downloads and optional online features have separate paths. Cloud agents Cloud or self-host + LLM LLM endpoint Optional (self-host)2 LLM endpoint Cloud-managed LLM endpoint
Compliance certifications4 Not currently certified; see trust posture3 SOC 2 (vendor-stated) SOC 2 + ISO 27001 (vendor portal) None advertised SOC 2 Type II + FedRAMP High + HIPAA (vendor-stated) None advertised SOC 2 (vendor-stated) None advertised
Audit / evidence shape HMAC run ledger + ChangeEvidence packet (8 questions) Enterprise audit logs Activity audit log git history only SSO/SCIM/RBAC + session audit None None advertised Session transcript
Structural depth Call graphs and cycles; module groups; files that change together; candidate N+1 patterns; advisory taint leads — 28 languages; depth varies Embedding search Precise xref + cross-repo Tree-sitter repo map Codemaps (visual) Semantic search None visible Reads files
Roam relationship — Complementary Complementary (enterprise tier) Complementary Complementary Consumes Roam via MCP Different surface (JetBrains) Consumes Roam via MCP

1Sourcegraph deprecated Cody Free + Pro on 2025-07-23. Cody now sits inside Sourcegraph's enterprise platform; the public pricing page lists an Enterprise plan starting at $16K rather than a self-serve seat price. Sourcegraph positions Amp as the consumer/team agentic successor. 2Windsurf supports cloud / hybrid / self-hosted deployment with offline install; the self-hosted path still contacts an LLM endpoint by default. 3Roam has no hosted service to certify: the CLI runs locally, and by default neither source, index, nor evidence leaves the developer's machine. Roam itself is not a substitute for a hosted vendor's compliance program — it can, however, produce artefacts that support evidence for SOC 2 CC8.1, ISO 42001, and similar AI-governance controls. 4Certification rows reflect each vendor's own public claims as of the verification date below — Roam has not independently audited any third-party certificate. Sources verified — see methodology below for full citations.

Methodology

The vendor cells retain the dated source review below, not a fresh measurement of their products. "Limited" means the reviewed sources described partial or restricted availability; "Not advertised" means the capability was not found in those sources. Neither means the capability cannot exist. Literal descriptions in these historical rows are not exhaustive inventories. If you're a vendor and we got something wrong, email [email protected] and we'll update.

Sources verified

How we mark each cell

  • Yes — capability documented on the vendor's marketing or docs page
  • Limited — partial capability or restricted availability described in the reviewed sources
  • Not advertised — we could not find the capability documented; this is verifiable via vendor pages above

Why "alongside", not "instead of"

Knowing what calls a function helps your agent choose what to inspect. It does not tell you whether the function meets the requirements. Use Roam's connections, findings, and candidate alternatives as inputs to the work, then review and test the proposed changes.

You can use Roam's free local tools alongside your existing reviewer. Hosted Roam Review is planned, not available to subscribe to. The proposed $99-$1,499/mo flat tiers are a pricing plan, not a current subscription offer. See availability and pricing.

Try Roam alongside your current reviewer

Start with a worked example — install → health → preflight → critique → a configured evidence packet. Or try the free local sample in a checkout with the required history. Its default HEAD~5..HEAD scope is a commit range, not five PR identities. It does not rerun tests.

For a written report on your last 30 or 90 PRs scored against the current detector set, commission a paid PR Replay engagement — Team ($2,500) and Deep ($6,000) on /audit. The conditional 50% future credit is usable within 60 days after Roam Review reaches general availability, if it launches. It is not cash or a refund if Review does not launch. Read the full credit terms before commissioning a report.