Warclick vs LinearB: Engineering Analytics Without the PR Wall
See every commit on every branch — not just the ones that made it through a pull request.
In a Warclick audit, 32% of one engineer's actual non-merge commits — 86 out of 265 — were invisible to a PR-anchored data model.
- All branches captured — every push, every branch, deduplicated by SHA, no PR required
- Fair attribution — actor-first, squash-merge credit preserved
- AI tool coverage breadth — 10+ tools detected from SCM activity, no per-tool admin keys
| Warclick | LinearB | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | $4 / active engineer / month, $20/mo minimum (publicly listed) | $29-$59 / contributor / month, annual billing* |
| Pricing transparency | Listed on homepage | Listed on linearb.io/pricing (rare for the category)* |
| How you start | Self-serve GitHub install, 7-day free trial, no credit card | Free tier (≤8 contributors) or 14-day trial; paid plans annual only* |
| Time to first dashboard | ~30 minutes after install | Same-day for free tier; multi-week onboarding for enterprise* |
| Branch coverage | All branches (every push to every branch via webhooks, deduplicated by SHA) | PR-anchored: cycle time runs from first commit on a branch with a PR through merge* |
| Commit attribution | Actor-first: credits the authenticated GitHub pusher | Standard Git author/email signature from VCS ingestion |
| Squash-merge crediting | Author keeps credit when their PR is squash-merged | Cycle-time anchored on PR open and merge events; squash-merge attribution follows Git author |
| Workflow automation | Read-only by design — no PR routing or auto-merge | WorkerB notifications, programmable workflows, AI code reviews, auto-PR descriptions* |
| AI coding tool tracking | Heuristic detection across 10+ tools (Copilot, Cursor, Claude Code, Codex, Aider, others) | Vendor integration: Copilot (PAT), Cursor (admin API), Claude* |
| Engineer-level views | Yes, by default on every dashboard | Yes via team and contributor breakdowns |
| Data scope | GitHub, read-only | GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps + Jira + Slack/Teams* |
| Best fit | 10-50 engineer teams | 50-200+ engineer enterprises (per Vendr deal data)* |
* Source: linearb.io, Vendr, Tekpon (April 2026) · linearb.io (April 2026) · Public reviews (April 2026) · LinearB helpdocs (April 2026) · Vendr (April 2026)
See your team's real activity in 30 minutes.
7-day free trial. No credit card. $4 per active engineer per month after.
Start Free TrialWhen Warclick and a PR-anchored model look at the same engineer, here is what each one sees.
| Category | Warclick | LinearB (unique) | Only Warclick sees | Only LinearB sees |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-merge commits on main | 164 | 164 | 0 | 0 |
| Feature-branch-only commits (no open PR) | 101 | 15 | 86 | 0 |
| Merge commits | 46 | 0 | 46 | 0 |
| Unique commits total | 311 | 179 | 132 | 0 |
Based on a Warclick audit comparing one engineer's activity over the same time window. LinearB's published cycle-time definition starts at "the first commit on a branch and the moment a pull request (PR) is opened" — branches that never reach a PR within the window don't enter the headline metrics. Counts only; no person, company, date, or project identifiers.
Imagine sitting down for a 1-on-1 with a builder, looking at the wrong number. You're either over-praising work that didn't happen or under-recognizing work that did. Neither one ends well.
What a PR-anchored model misses
LinearB's public documentation defines Coding Time as "the time between the first commit on a branch and the moment a pull request (PR) is opened." Cycle Time, throughput, and most of the platform's headline metrics build on that foundation. The data model is anchored on the pull request lifecycle.
That works cleanly when every meaningful unit of work flows through a PR. It works less cleanly when engineers spike on branches that never get formalized, prototype on draft branches that get abandoned, hotfix-and-revert outside of the standard PR flow, or push exploration commits that inform a later, smaller PR. Those commits are real work. They just don't enter LinearB's metric pipeline.
Warclick listens at the webhook layer. Every push to every branch generates an event, every event is deduplicated by SHA, and every commit appears in the dashboard regardless of whether it ever became a PR. No PR required, no merge required, no Jira link required. If a developer pushed it to a branch on GitHub, you see it.
All-branch reality
Warclick captures every commit on every push, regardless of branch. We deduplicate by SHA so a single commit never inflates a count just because it lives on multiple branches. Squash merges preserve credit to the original author. The attribution model is actor-first: the authenticated GitHub pusher gets credit, fixing phantom-email and multi-account misattribution out of the box.
A pull request is a milestone. It is not a measurement. The work happens before the PR opens, sometimes on branches that never become PRs at all. Counting only what makes it through is a fine way to grade releases. It is a strange way to grade engineers.
AI coding tool adoption: coverage vs. depth
Both tools surface AI coding tool adoption. The integration model is the difference.
LinearB pulls usage data from each AI vendor's API. Today the AI Tools panel covers GitHub Copilot (via a personal access token with org-owner permissions), Cursor (via an admin API key), and Claude. The numbers are vendor-confirmed and come with high certainty for the tools that have an admin API.
Warclick optimizes for coverage. We detect AI-assisted activity from SCM patterns alone, across 10+ tools — Copilot, Cursor, Claude Code, Codex, Aider, Cline, Continue, and others — without per-tool admin keys. If your team is using a long tail of AI tools, Warclick sees it. If you only care about Copilot and Cursor and want vendor-confirmed certainty for those two, LinearB covers that ground deeply.
What LinearB does that Warclick does not
Honest comparison cuts both ways. LinearB ships action features Warclick does not: WorkerB for contextual Slack and Microsoft Teams notifications, programmable workflows for routing PRs by size and risk, AI code reviews that flag security and quality issues automatically, and auto-PR descriptions generated from diff context. LinearB also integrates with Jira, GitLab, Bitbucket, and Azure DevOps.
Warclick is read-only by design. We surface what is happening; we do not act on PRs. We are GitHub-only. If your team needs PR routing, automated code review, or unified Jira-plus-Git reporting in one platform, LinearB ships features we do not. That is a real difference, and it is not the right tradeoff for every team.
Pricing reality check
LinearB publishes its pricing on linearb.io/pricing — unusual for the engineering-intelligence category and a credit to them. Essentials is $29 per contributor per month, Enterprise is $59, both billed annually. Vendr's buyer guide reports a median annual contract value of $25,200 across 31 deals.
At $4 per active engineer per month, Warclick costs about 10% of LinearB's typical published per-seat pricing at the midpoint, with no annual commitment.
* Based on linearb.io published pricing of $29-$59/contributor/mo and Vendr/Tekpon corroboration. Your actual quote may differ. LinearB's free tier (≤8 contributors) is genuinely free.
Warclick's minimum is $20/month. LinearB's minimum is whichever of: (a) free for ≤8 contributors, (b) $29 × 9 contributors × 12 months = $3,132 for the smallest paid annual contract. Different shapes for different team sizes.
Frequently asked
Is Warclick a LinearB alternative?
How is Warclick's commit count different from LinearB's?
Are there other LinearB alternatives or competitors I should consider?
Is Warclick really only $4 per active engineer per month?
What does LinearB do that Warclick does not?
Other LinearB alternatives
Comparison pages publish over the coming weeks.
Ready to see what your team actually did this month?
Self-serve, no sales call required. Trial starts the moment GitHub is connected.
Start Free Trial