Every AI tool, lab-tested.

We buy AI and developer tools with our own money, test them the way a real user would, and publish scored verdicts with receipts.

No sponsored placements. No listicles written from press releases. When we cannot run a test, we say so in plain words instead of inventing results.

How we test

Hands-on where possible. We use free tiers, public demos, and official documentation ourselves before writing a word.
Honest labels. Anything we did not personally run is labeled "based on public documentation and pricing as of October 1, 2026". Never implied as tested.
A fixed rubric. Every coding assistant is scored on the same six criteria, out of 100 points, so reports are directly comparable.
Money stays out of it. Affiliate commissions never buy placement or points. The full policy is on our methodology page.

Lab Reports

80/100

The sharpest everyday coding editor, if you can live with the credit pool.

Best for: daily drivers who want a fast IDE with real model choice.

79/100

The most autonomous agent of the three, with quota billing you need to understand first.

Best for: delegating multi-file builds to an agent with automatic codebase context.

74/100

The cheapest full-featured assistant, and the only one GitHub-native teams should start with.

Best for: budget teams and GitHub workflows, where completions are unlimited.

We earn commissions when readers sign up for a tool through links on this site. That money pays for the subscriptions we test. It works like this:

Rankings and scores are never for sale. A vendor cannot pay for a better score or placement.
Verdicts are written before any commercial discussion, and testing priorities are set by reader demand, not sponsors.
Right now we have no affiliate programs active, so tool links go to official homepages. When programs are approved, each report will keep its prominent disclosure.