We also have a comparison page that talks about Bito vs GitHub Copilot. Still, one of the most common questions we get on customer calls is: How is Bito different from GitHub Copilot?
The assumption is that both tools solve the same problem, just in different ways. I’ve been using Bito for the past four months, so I thought I had a good sense of what set it apart.
Still, the Copilot question kept coming up. I had never used it myself, until a few days ago.
I finally gave Copilot a proper try. As someone already deep into Bito, I was curious to see what the experience felt like side by side. Where does Copilot help? Where does Bito go further? Where do they overlap?
This blog is my honest comparison based on real use. It covers what each tool does, how are they different, and when one might help more than the other.
Bito and GitHub Copilot show up in different places
Copilot works inside your IDE. It predicts what you’re about to write and tries to complete it. If you’re in the middle of a function or writing boilerplate, it often gets it right. It’s designed to speed up the act of writing code.
Bito shows up later. It reviews the code you’ve already written, checks logic, style, structure, and even flags issues across files. It works inside your pull request, not your editor. You’re not asking it to generate code. You’re asking it to understand what changed and why it matters.
That difference changes everything.
This blog compares the two tools across four areas:
- AI-powered code reviews
- AI chat inside your workflow
- Code completion
- Security and compliance
If you’re using one and considering the other, or just trying to understand which one fits your workflow, these are the differences that count.
I used Copilot to build a feature. Then I wanted a real review.
I used Copilot to add a new feature to my Expense Tracker project. I added a recurring expenseincome scheduler and asked it to suggest something useful, and it proposed this feature with a clear implementation plan.
It generated the UI update for the form in index.html:
<label>
<input type="checkbox" id="recurring-checkbox" />
Recurring
</label>
<select id="recurring-interval" disabled>
<option value="monthly">Monthly</option>
<option value="weekly">Weekly</option>
<option value="yearly">Yearly</option>
</select>
Then it added logic in app.js to track recurring transactions and save them in localStorage:
document.getElementById('recurring-checkbox').addEventListener('change', function() {
document.getElementById('recurring-interval').disabled = !this.checked;
});
const expense = {
// existing fields...
isRecurring,
recurringInterval: isRecurring ? recurringInterval : null,
lastAdded: isRecurring ? new Date().toISOString().split('T')[0] : null
};
And finally, it included a renderer function for recurring items in the UI:
function renderRecurringTransactions() {
const list = document.getElementById('recurring-list');
list.innerHTML = '';
recurringTransactions.forEach(tx => {
const li = document.createElement('li');
li.textContent = `${tx.category}: ${tx.amount} (${tx.recurringInterval})`;
list.appendChild(li);
});
}
(By the way, if you want to checkout the live pull request, click here)
Copilot did a good job stitching this together. It saved me time. The suggestions made sense. Then I asked it to review the code changes. Copilot gave me this:
It’s just average at best and incomplete! I’ll show you why later.
I really missed Bito here. So I pushed the changes to a new branch, opened a pull request, and asked Bito to review it.
Right away, Bito added a summary at the top that explained the purpose of the change. It reviewed the full diff and left comments where it saw risks or improvements.
- It flagged the fact that I was storing sensitive data in localStorage without encryption.
- It pointed out that I had no validation on the recurring interval input.
- It noticed duplication in the logic for creating expense objects and recommended cleaning it up.
By the way, I ran Bito’s Code Review Agent in Comprehensive mode. If you’re not sure about this setting, you should checkout my blog on Bito’s configuration settings.
Look at this list of suggestions by Bito (and this is why I called out Copilot’s suggestions as incomplete):
Copilot didn’t mention any of this.
Bito gave this feedback inside the pull request. The comments were tied to specific lines. They were clear and easy to act on. I didn’t have to guess what it was referring to or switch context to understand the suggestion.
That experience made the difference clear. Copilot helped me write the feature, which obviously needed a lot of monitoring. Bito helped me review it.
One sped up the development process. The other made sure the code was actually ready to go in.
Where the differences really show up: Bito vs GitHub Copilot
Once I had used both Bito and Copilot, I went back to Bito vs GitHub Copilot comparison page to see how the tools stack up feature by feature.
I wasn’t looking for a checklist. I wanted to see what I might have missed. Here’s how things really shake out, if you’re a developer deciding between the two.
1. Code reviews
GitHub Copilot:
- Copilot only supports pull request reviews if you’re on GitHub Enterprise. That’s it. Even then, it just gives you a high-level summary and a few basic suggestions.
- It doesn’t support GitLab or Bitbucket. It doesn’t let you choose what files to include or what branches to target. It doesn’t do incremental reviews. It doesn’t give you any analytics.
Bito:
- Bito does all of that by default. You get pull request summaries, inline comments, and a walkthrough of the entire change.
- You can control the review depth. Essential if you want only critical issues, Comprehensive if you want more nice-to-have feedback.
- It also supports incremental reviews, so it only comments on what’s new since the last push. No repetition.
If your team uses GitLab or Bitbucket, Copilot isn’t even in the conversation. Bito works across all three. You also get static analysis and security checks built into the review. Copilot doesn’t do either.
2. AI Chat
Both tools support chat inside the IDE.
GitHub Copilot:
- Copilot’s chat works in VS Code and JetBrains. You can ask it to explain code or generate something. It’s useful during development, but that’s where it ends.
Bito:
- Bito’s chat does more. It works in the IDE too, but also inside the terminal, in the web app, and even inside pull requests. This is underrated.
- If Bito leaves a comment and you have a question about it, you can just ask in the comment. It answers. You stay in the PR. You don’t have to go back to the editor or guess what it meant.
That back-and-forth makes it feel more like a real reviewer. It’s especially helpful if you’re working through someone else’s pull request and want quick clarification.
3. Autocomplete
GitHub Copilot:
- This is the one area where Copilot clearly leads. It’s built for code completion. It predicts code as you type, fills in function bodies, and handles repetitive patterns well. If you write a lot of boilerplate, it saves time.
Bito:
- Bito also offers single or multi-line code completion in IDE extension. Although it’s not trying to replace that use case. It focuses on reviewing code that’s already written, not generating it in real time.
If you need both, you can use them together. That’s what I feel should be done.
4. Security and Compliance
This part is easy to miss unless you’re looking closely.
GitHub Copilot:
- Copilot doesn’t scan for secrets. It doesn’t flag risky logic or insecure patterns.
- It has SOC 2 compliance, but only under its Enterprise plan. On the individual plan, you don’t get the same level of control or visibility.
Bito:
- Bito includes secret scanning, security vulnerability checks, and runs static analysis on your code.
- It’s also SOC 2 compliant. That matters if you’re building for users, especially inside a company.
I didn’t think about this at first. But once I pushed Copilot-generated code and saw Bito calling out things like unsanitized inputs and unencrypted localStorage, it hit me.
Copilot helped me write the code. Bito helped me see what was wrong with it.
My verdict on Bito vs Copilot:
Based on our Bito vs Copilot comparison page and my personal experience, I feel Bito is way-way better at code reviews and security than Copilot. Bito has more features, more context awareness (now even better with its agentic approach), and actionable analytics.
Based on our Bito vs GitHub Copilot comparison page, Copilot covers five out of sixteen covered features while Bito covers 14 out of 16 features.
Final words: What I think after using both
Copilot didn’t click for me. I get why people like Copilot. It speeds up writing and the autocomplete can be helpful. But it felt generic.
Cursor gave me a better experience when I tried it. Faster suggestions and more easy handling for pushing and creating PR.
Bito fits better into how I’d work as a developer. I’d care more about what happens when I’m done writing. I’d want to know if I missed something and want a second set of eyes before I merge. That’s what Bito gives me.
If you already use Copilot or Cursor, you might not need another code-writing tool. If you want better reviews, you might. That’s the real difference.
Not every team needs both. It depends on where you want help.
By the way, you might want to read our other blog if you’re looking for GitHub Copilot alternatives.
by the Bito team. 
