--- title: "We Tested Grok, Opus, Sonnet, GPT, and Gemini in Kilo Code Reviewer" url: https://daily.dev/posts/we-tested-grok-opus-sonnet-gpt-and-gemini-in-kilo-code-reviewer-yjkkqinsy source_url: https://blog.kilo.ai/p/review-testing type: article source: "Kilo Blog" published: 2026-06-01T11:19:40.048Z updated: 2026-06-07T20:08:54.967Z tags: ["react", "llm"] reading_time: 10 upvotes: 8 comments: 1 language: en --- > ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://daily.dev/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # We Tested Grok, Opus, Sonnet, GPT, and Gemini in Kilo Code Reviewer **[Kilo Blog](https://daily.dev/sources/kilo-ai-blog)** · 10 min read · 8 upvotes · 1 comments ## Summary A structured benchmark comparing five AI models (Claude Opus 4.8, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Grok, GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro) on their ability to detect 15 planted bugs in a React/TypeScript budget app using Kilo's Code Reviewer feature. Opus 4.8 caught the most bugs (10/15), while Grok tied Sonnet at 9/15 for a fraction of the cost (~$0.08). Gemini 3.1 Pro performed worst, missing obvious bugs caught by cheaper models. Four bugs survived all five reviews — those requiring domain understanding of budget semantics rather than code-level pattern matching. The key takeaway: combining two models with complementary strengths (e.g., Grok + Sonnet) outperforms any single model, and cost does not reliably predict detection quality. ## Full article daily.dev links to this article rather than hosting it. Read it at the original source: --- Tags: [#react](https://daily.dev/tags/react), [#llm](https://daily.dev/tags/llm) [View this post on daily.dev](https://daily.dev/posts/we-tested-grok-opus-sonnet-gpt-and-gemini-in-kilo-code-reviewer-yjkkqinsy)