Catch it in review,or know it while writing.
CodeRabbit reads the pull request once it opens. Graphify gives the assistant writing the code a map of what it is touching.
Nine rows.
Managed review is theirs. Everything else follows from when each one acts.
A review is a late place to learn.
By the time a pull request opens, the change is written and the reasoning behind it has gone. A reviewer reading it, human or otherwise, is reconstructing intent from a diff. That is worth doing, and it is the last cheap moment to catch anything.
The earlier moment is while the code is being written, and that is where a graph pays. An assistant that can ask what calls this before it edits does not produce the change that needed catching. The two are not in competition; one of them is simply upstream of the other.
And where the code goes.
A hosted reviewer reads your repository on its own machines. Graphify parses on yours and writes the graph into your own working tree. For a lot of teams that is not a preference, it is the whole decision.
Questions about the two
What teams ask when they already run a reviewer.
They act at different moments. CodeRabbit reviews pull requests after they open, and if you want that with no infrastructure it does exactly that job. Graphify works earlier, so fewer problems reach the pull request at all. If your code cannot leave your machines, Graphify is the one that fits.
Yes. A common setup is Graphify on-device as the memory the assistant queries while code is written, and a hosted reviewer commenting on the pull requests that result. They never touch the same surface.
Not as a hosted bot. Graph-aware review is part of Graphify Enterprise, in early access, and it runs in your own infrastructure. For a managed bot commenting on every pull request today, a service is the right shape.