Weave
A dashboard for engineering managers that shows how much of a team's code output actually comes from AI coding assistants versus humans, and whether that AI-written code is actually good — instead of guessing based on gut feeling.
🔗 Visit Weave
Description
As more developers use AI coding assistants like Cursor or Claude Code to write parts of their codebase, engineering leaders increasingly don't know how much of their team's output is AI-generated, whether it's held to the same quality bar as human-written code, or whether it's actually making the team faster. Weave is built to answer those questions with real data instead of anecdotes.
Weave is an engineering analytics platform that has analyzed 2M+ pull requests and code reviews to build engineer-level scoring of AI's impact on a team's output — tracking code turnover, quality metrics, and velocity, and routing analysis across multiple AI models (Deepseek, GPT-5, Claude) rather than relying on a single one. It includes an AI agent called Wooly that surfaces optimization insights, and it's built for compliance-sensitive environments with SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, and HIPAA certifications plus SSO/SAML/OIDC support. It's aimed at engineering organizations from early-stage startups to large enterprises, and already claims 500+ teams using it. Pricing is a free starter plan, Pro at $50 per engineer per month (with a 16.67% discount for annual billing), and custom Enterprise pricing. It's a very recent launch — as of this review it had gone live only days earlier, on July 24, 2026.
💬 Our review
The short version: Weave answers a genuinely new and increasingly important question — is our AI-assisted code actually good, not just fast — but because it launched only days before this review, there's essentially no independent track record yet, so treat the free starter plan as a way to evaluate it, not a mature purchase decision.
Against established engineering-analytics tools like LinearB, Swarmia, or Jellyfish, all of which measure PR throughput and cycle time, Weave's specific differentiator is AI-attribution: breaking down how much of the codebase's velocity and quality comes from AI assistance specifically, which none of the older competitors were built around from day one. That's a real edge if AI-generated code volume is a live concern for your engineering leadership right now. The $50/engineer/month Pro price is on the higher end for this category, and at a team of any real size that adds up quickly — worth running the free starter plan against your actual PR history before committing budget. Given the launch is days old, expect rough edges, incomplete integrations, and a support team still finding its footing; this is a bet on a promising idea from a well-resourced team (SOC 2/GDPR/HIPAA compliance out of the gate suggests real backing), not yet a proven product.
💰 Pricing
📊 Global score
🤖 AI-enriched data
Palier gratuit disponible. Pro : 50$/ingénieur/mois (-16,67% en facturation annuelle). Enterprise : sur devis.
Pros
Spécifiquement conçu pour mesurer l'impact de l'IA sur le code, pas juste le débit général
2M+ pull requests déjà analysées, 500+ équipes clientes revendiquées
Conformité SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, HIPAA dès le lancement
Analyse multi-modèles (Deepseek, GPT-5, Claude) plutôt qu'un seul fournisseur IA
Cons
Lancement très récent (24 juillet 2026) — quasiment aucun recul indépendant
50$/ingénieur/mois est cher pour la catégorie à l'échelle d'une équipe
Concurrents établis (LinearB, Swarmia, Jellyfish) ont un historique bien plus long
Noms de fondateurs non confirmés sur le site officiel