Compare

Branchscope, GitHub and GitLab

Team plans side by side: what they cost, how many CI minutes come with them, where your code lives, and how changes are reviewed.

FeatureBranchscope DeveloperGitHub TeamGitLab Premium
Price
Price per user a month€20$4$29
Hosted CI minutes a month2,000 per userat least 10,000 per organizationPlanned3,000 per organization10,000 per organization
Extra minutes (2 vCPU Linux)€0.005Planned$0.006$0.01
Where your code lives
Hosted in the EUOn every planEnterprise onlyGitLab Dedicated only
Run it yourselfDocker Compose, on every planGitHub Enterprise ServerSelf-managed
Signing in
Single sign-on with your company's identity provider (SAML or OIDC)On the Team planPlannedEnterprise Cloud onlyIncluded
Reviewing changes
Reviews as diagrams derived from the code

Prices as published on October 20, 2026, before tax. GitHub's and GitLab's minutes are shared by the whole organization.

Side by side

What changes when agents write the code

The same situations on GitHub and on Branchscope: reviewing a change, an agent's access, a break in another repository, and a branch that has moved on.

Reviewing a change an agent wroteThe same change: an agent adds invoice creation across the web app and the API.
GitHubLines that changedLines that changedA line diff of two files, with 37 more files below. Nothing in it says which parts of the system the change touches.src/api/invoices.ts+ export async function createInvoice(…) {+ await db.insert(invoices).values(…)+ }Billing.Api/InvoicesController.cs+ [HttpPost("/invoices")]- public IActionResult Delete(int id)+ public IActionResult Create(Invoice i)… 37 more files
You read every line and work out for yourself:
  • which parts of the system it touches
  • whether the UI now talks to the database directly
  • that the web app still calls the DELETE it removed

AI review comments, where used, are generated text: a re-run can say something different.

BranchscopeWhat it changed, as diagramsWhat it changed, as diagramsA diagram: InvoiceForm calls the new endpoint POST /invoices, which writes the invoices table; InvoiceForm also uses the table directly, which a rule forbids. DELETE /invoices/{} is removed.InvoiceFormPOST /invoicesnewinvoices tableDELETE /invoices/{}removed
Rule "UI doesn't use the database" broken at InvoiceForm.tsx:14web-app still calls DELETE /invoices/{}
Derived from the code, never written by an AI:
  • same commit, same diagrams, byte for byte
  • rule and plan checks down to the file and line
  • reported as the check branchscope/review, which a ruleset can require before a merge
An agent with write accessWhat an agent can do once it has a credential that can push to the repository.
GitHubThe token's rightsThe token's rightsAn agent with a write token can push a branch, edit a workflow on it, have that workflow's run read the secrets, and publish a release.Agentwith a write tokenpush a branchedit a workflow on itits run gets the secretspublish a release

The token decides, not who holds it. Restricting an agent means building it yourself: narrower tokens, rules that name it, reviews you remember to ask for.

Secrets are withheld from forks' pull requests, and an environment can require a reviewer. But a branch pushed with the token is trusted like any other: a workflow edited on it, with a token allowed to change workflows, can read the repository's secrets.

BranchscopeAgents have limits by designAgents have limits by designAn agent acting under its own name can push its branch and open a change. Updating main is refused, secrets wait for a person, and publishing or approving is refused.Agentunder its own namepush its branch,open a changeupdate main: refusedsecrets: wait for a personpublish orapprove: refused

Every push and merge goes through the push guard, which knows who and which agent is acting. Protected branches and tags refuse agents by default.

A run an agent set off gets no secrets or identity token until a person approves it; agents only draft releases and can never approve a deployment. People merge.

A change that breaks another repositorybilling-api stops serving DELETE /invoices/{}, which web-app and mobile-bff still call.
GitHubEach repository on its ownEach repository on its ownbilling-api, with the change, is drawn apart from web-app, mobile-bff and worker. Nothing connects them.billing-apithe changeweb-appmobile-bffworker

The review sees billing-api's diff. Nothing there says who calls it: the break shows up later, when web-app and mobile-bff fail in production or in their own CI.

Dependency graphs list packages, not which endpoints, messages or tables one service uses of another.

BranchscopeThe other side, on the changeThe other side, on the changeweb-app and mobile-bff call DELETE on billing-api and are marked as broken by the change; worker subscribes to billing-api and isn't affected.billing-apithe changeweb-appcalls DELETEmobile-bffcalls DELETEworkersubscribes

Breaking: stops serving DELETE /invoices/{}, which web-app and mobile-bff still call (with links to each call).

Joined from every repository's graph by endpoint, channel and table; compared with the default branch, or with what's deployed to production. Repositories you can't read stay invisible. The organization's Graph tab draws it all.

When main has moved onBoth main and the change edited the invoices code since they split.
GitHubConflicting lines of textConflicting lines of textA text conflict in src/invoices.ts: main's line and the change's line between conflict markers.src/invoices.ts<<<<<<< main total(i, { tax: true })======= total(i).withDiscount(d)>>>>>>> change

Only where the same lines were edited. And it misses what merges cleanly as text but is still broken:

main deletes formatInvoice() in format.tsthe change adds a call to it in pdf.ts"No conflicts", and the build breaks after the merge
BranchscopeA conflict mapA conflict mapTwo columns, main and the change. Both changed total(): main its tax option, the change its discount. main removed formatInvoice(), and the change's renderPdf() now calls it.MAINCHANGEtotal()changed: tax optiontotal()edited: discountformatInvoice()removedrenderPdf()now calls formatInvoice()

Both sides since the merge base, element by element, with code links on each side. Selecting one highlights it in both.

Semantic conflict: main removes formatInvoice(), which the change starts calling. Merges cleanly as text.

Shown as a warning in the merge box, from the same graphs as the review, before anything is merged.

Agents and people: one workflow, a clear lineAgents are first-class: their own name, the same tools, the code's meaning. People decide what merges, ships and gets secrets.
Agents and people: one workflow, a clear lineTwo lanes. A person asks for work; the task goes to the agent, which reads the graph, pushes its branch through the push guard, opens a change and fixes findings until the review is clean. Then the change goes back to the person, who reviews the diagrams, merges and ships.PERSONalice, signed in or with her own tokenAsks for workan issue (Linear) or a task on a changeAGENT"claude for alice", or app:reviewerinstalled in acme; short-lived tokensthe taskReads the graphrulesets, check_push,linked issues over MCPPushes its branchnever main or a protected tagPush guardknows it's an agent; fails closedOpens a changethe review runs: branchscope/reviewFixes findingsget_review over MCP, pushes until cleanready for reviewPERSONalice, signed in or with her own tokenReviews the diagramsfindings, other repositories,conflict map; then mergesShipspublishes the release, approvesthe deployment and secrets
Refused for agents:update a protected branchpublish a releaseapprove a deploymentget secrets before a person approves

Agents can draft releases, open changes, comment, and post status updates on a change.

On the record, both lanes
  • Activity names the agent and who it acted for on every push, merge and refusal: "claude for alice"
  • The audit log records who changed settings; webhooks and integrations carry the agent too
  • Rulesets can bypass a person without bypassing their agent; an agent app can have its own bypass
  • Teams can hand an installed agent app their AI provider key, with a monthly spend cap Branchscope enforces

GitHub as it works out of the box, with branch protection or rulesets on main and Actions for CI.

On every Branchscope plan

What security and procurement teams ask about, and what checking agents' work needs.

Fails closed

Every push and merge passes the push guard. If it can't be reached, nothing lands.

No outside calls you didn't set up

Branchscope calls other services only when you set it up. An import you start reads that repository from GitHub or GitLab once. Administrators can add mirrors, which push branches and tags on to another git host; webhooks, which send events to the URLs they give or to apps they install; and integrations, which post to Slack, Discord, Microsoft Teams, Mattermost or Sentry. All are off until added, and the keys, tokens and chat URLs they use are stored encrypted.

No trackers

The web app loads no third-party scripts, analytics or trackers, and serves its own fonts. Your browser talks only to Branchscope.

No AI on your code

Code graphs and reviews are derived by compilers and extractors, never by an AI model, and Branchscope sends your code to none.

Identity you control

People sign in through Keycloak over OIDC. Disable someone there and their sessions, tokens and SSH keys stop working within a minute or two.

Every action attributed

Each push, merge and refusal records who did it and, for agents, which agent acted for whom. The audit log records who changed security settings, such as rulesets, secrets, mirrors and access, and when.

Plans and pricesDue diligence