Skip to main content
AIDiveForge AIDiveForge

Guildly vs Mira

Guildly and Mira are both coding assistants tracked by AIDiveForge. Below is a side-by-side comparison of pricing, capabilities, platforms, and ownership — sourced from each tool's live website and verified before publishing.

Guildly

Guildly

Each agent has a fixed role: PM writes PRDs, Manager routes tickets, SDEs work in isolated git worktrees, Reviewer signs off before anything merges. Every action traces back through a chain — line of code to ticket, ticket to PRD, PRD to the #general message that started it. The audit trail isn't a report you run after the fact; it's the structure the system runs on. That structure is also the ceiling: teams needing agents to adapt their process mid-sprint, or handle workflows that don't fit the six-role model, will hit the playbook's edges before long. The tool is in beta, with no API and no self-hosted option, so the surface you can extend is narrow.

Mira

Mira

The vendor states Mira hooks into GitHub via a self-hosted GitHub App, fires on every pull request open event, and posts inline comments within a median of 77 seconds — mapping call graphs and dependency blast radius before reading the diff. It flags bugs, auth bypasses, missing awaits, and style drift by reading the repo's own patterns rather than a ruleset you maintain. The self-host path is a single Docker command; the model is swappable via environment variable, so teams running Ollama or a private Anthropic endpoint are equally supported. Where it breaks: teams needing IDE feedback before a PR exists, or wanting issues surfaced in CI pipelines outside GitHub, hit a gap the tool does not currently fill.

AttributeGuildlyMira
PricingFreeFree
Free trialNoNo
Open sourceNoYes
Has APINoNo
Self-hosted optionNoYes
PlatformsmacOSDocker, self-hosted
Pros
  • Deterministic six-role workflow (PM → Manager → SDE → Reviewer) means agents don't improvise or skip steps, so you're not debugging a PR that nobody remembers creating.
  • Full audit chain from code line to PRD to originating conversation, which means tracing a regression takes seconds instead of a git-blame session that still doesn't explain the why.
  • Git worktree isolation per SDE ticket, so parallel agents working the same repo don't stomp each other's files mid-sprint.
  • Model-agnostic agent identity — swapping the underlying LLM doesn't wipe team history or personality, so a model deprecation doesn't mean starting over.
  • Per-agent token dashboard with cost limits on autopilot, so you can walk away without discovering in the morning that the overnight run cost more than you planned.
  • Self-hosted by default with a single Docker command, so your source code never transits a third-party SaaS — which matters the moment a security or compliance audit asks where your code traveled.
  • Model is swappable via a single environment variable, so switching from Anthropic to a local LLM when API costs or data-residency requirements change does not require re-architecting the deployment.
  • Convention enforcement derives from the repo itself rather than a config file you maintain, which means teams avoid the ongoing cost of keeping a ruleset synchronized with how the codebase actually evolves.
  • Blast radius reporting — listing dependent repositories and reference counts alongside each flagged issue — lets engineers triage by actual impact rather than debating whether a comment is worth addressing.
  • Apache 2.0 license, so teams that need to audit, fork, or extend the reviewer are not blocked by proprietary terms — unlike SaaS alternatives where the review logic is a black box.
Cons
  • The six-role org chart is fixed — if your project needs a different shape (a dedicated QA agent, a data engineer, a second PM), the structure doesn't bend. Teams with non-standard workflows end up either forcing their process into the existing roles or looking at tools that let them define their own agent topology.
  • No API means you cannot plug Guildly into an existing CI/CD pipeline, a Jira board, or a monitoring stack. Teams that need agents embedded in broader toolchains hit a dead end and move to a framework they can integrate themselves.
  • Beta-only availability with no self-hosted option means you cannot deploy Guildly in an air-gapped or regulated environment. Any team with data residency requirements is blocked entirely.
  • The only documented integration trigger is a GitHub pull request open event. Teams wanting feedback earlier — pre-commit, on push to a branch, or inside a CI pipeline gate — get nothing from Mira, and adding that coverage requires a separate toolchain running in parallel.
  • No hosted option exists. Teams without the infrastructure capacity or operational appetite to run and maintain a containerized service, manage GitHub App credentials, and keep Postgres healthy will spend more time on the deployment than the review coverage saves them — at which point a hosted SaaS reviewer is the rational alternative.
  • The benchmark cited on the product page is vendor-published against a single 50-PR dataset judged by a specific Claude model. Teams making a production bet need to validate false-positive rates against their own repos; community-independent benchmarks are not yet available, so quality claims cannot be verified externally before deployment.
Bottom line

Mira is open source. Choose based on which difference matters most for your workflow.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Guildly and Mira?

Guildly is Free, while Mira is Free and open source. Compare pricing, free trial, API, platforms, and pros/cons in the table above on AIDiveForge.

Is Guildly better than Mira?

It depends on your workflow. Use the side-by-side attributes (pricing, open source, API, self-hosted, platforms) to decide. AIDiveForge does not rank a universal winner — we publish verified facts so you can choose.

Guildly vs Mira: which should I pick?

Pick Guildly if its pricing model, openness, or platform fit matches your constraints; pick Mira otherwise. Check free-trial availability on each listing if you want to test before committing.

Comparison data is sourced and verified by the AIDiveForge data pipeline. AIDiveForge is editorially independent.