code-review-graph vs CodeBurn

code-review-graph

• Developers who use an MCP-compatible AI coding assistant on a large repository
• Teams that want code reviews to focus on the files a change affects
• People who want the code map kept local rather than sent to a hosted service
• Users of supported tools such as Claude Code, Cursor or Codex who want automatic setup

CodeBurn

• Developers who use several AI coding tools and want one view of spending
• People on a Claude subscription who want to see how much of their plan they have used
• Developers who want to find config bloat, such as unused MCP servers or oversized CLAUDE.md files
• Anyone comparing whether a workflow or model change actually lowered cost

code-review-graph

• Runs locally and stores the graph in a local database (SQLite, per the README's pipeline diagram)
• One install command configures many AI coding tools and reports which were detected
• Incremental updates re-parse only files whose SHA-256 hash changed, per the README

CodeBurn

• Runs locally with no account, and the README says it reads files already on your disk
• Covers many tools and breaks spend down by model, project, git branch, and task
• Optimize and undo commands back up files before changing them, which makes config edits reversible

code-review-graph

• Projects in languages outside the supported list, since parsing coverage is limited to the listed languages
• Users who do not use an MCP-compatible AI tool, since the main interface is through MCP
• Anyone expecting the token savings to hold exactly, since the README's numbers come from one 2026-08-02 snapshot and it says the repository has grown since

CodeBurn

• People who want a hosted cloud dashboard across a team, since the README describes it as local
• Users of tools outside the supported list, because it only reads the session files of tools it integrates with
• Anyone needing exact billing reconciliation, since the README presents figures as estimates from session data and does not claim they match invoices

code-review-graph

• The token-reduction figures are from a single snapshot and the README says current numbers are larger
• Parsing is limited to the listed languages, with fallbacks where no Tree-sitter grammar exists
• Requires Python 3.10 or newer and depends on MCP-compatible tools to be useful

CodeBurn

• Depends on each tool's session file format, so coverage can change when those tools update
• The README describes several surfaces (desktop app, menu bar, Capacity Dock) that appear to be macOS-focused, and the Windows and Linux feature set is not clearly stated
• README is truncated, so details on privacy of the desktop app and full command list are not verified here