Comparison
By the Glue Team
Waydev and Glue both analyze codebases, but Waydev measures what developers do while Glue reads what the code is. One is activity-based. The other is intelligence-based.
| Capability | Glue | Waydev |
|---|---|---|
| What it does | AI reads code for product and engineering intelligence | Analyzes git data for developer activity metrics |
| Data source | The actual codebase | Git commit history and activity |
| Measures activity | No—not its focus | Yes, commits, lines, active days |
| Measures code understanding | Yes, reads what the code is | No—only sees commit metadata |
| Used for performance reviews | No | Yes, often controversial |
| Shows feature completeness | Yes, reads actual code | No—counts activity, not outcomes |
| Detects technical debt | Yes, by analyzing code | No—can't tell from git history |
| Tells you if sprint work fixed problems | Yes, reads the code and verifies | No—counts work done, not outcomes |
| Measures developer productivity | No—measures code, not developers | Yes, lines, commits, active days |
| Privacy-respecting | Yes—reads code, not tracking activity | Controversial—activity-based metrics |
Waydev measures developer activity. How many commits did this person make? How many lines of code? How many active days? This data comes from git history. The focus is entirely on measuring what developers do.
Glue reads the codebase. What does the code actually show about features, health, ownership, and strategy? This data comes from analyzing the actual code. The focus is entirely on understanding what the code is.
These measure entirely different things. A developer with many commits might be fixing the same problem repeatedly. A developer with few commits might be solving hard problems that require deep thinking. Commits don't tell you about code health or outcomes. Glue's code reading does.
Waydev is often used for developer performance measurement and comparison. This is controversial. Developers resist being measured by commits and lines of code. They're activity metrics, not outcome metrics. A developer might write one line that prevents a production crash—high impact, low activity. Or write 500 lines that gets deleted next sprint—high activity, zero impact.
Glue doesn't measure developers. It measures the codebase. The question is never "Is Alice productive?" It's "Is the codebase healthy?" That's a fundamentally different—and less contentious—question.
Waydev might show Developer A shipped more lines of code than Developer B. But only Glue can reveal: Developer A's code is increasingly unmaintainable while Developer B's code is remarkably clean and strategic. Activity doesn't equal quality or outcome.
Or Waydev shows a team was very active last quarter with high commit volume. Glue might reveal: the high activity was fixing bugs in poorly written code, not building new features. Activity doesn't tell you whether you're moving forward.
Waydev's audience is typically HR, finance, and sometimes engineering managers. The question is usually: "How active are our developers and how is that activity distributed?" It's an activity-tracking question.
Glue's audience is product leaders, CTOs, and engineering directors. The question is: "What is our codebase revealing about product and engineering strategy?" It's an intelligence question.
Waydev is about measuring people. Glue is about understanding code. Different questions. Different use cases.
Waydev's activity-based measurement is why many engineering teams have adopted "no-vanity-metrics" policies. Developers understandably resist being measured by commits and lines. It's transparent measurement but it's also potentially misleading.
Glue doesn't measure developers—it measures code. It doesn't create the discomfort of developer-level activity tracking. It's intelligence about the codebase, not surveillance of developers.
Waydev excels at:
Glue excels at:
Waydev answers: "What did developers do?"
Glue answers: "What did developers build and is it healthy?"
These are not the same question. One measures activity. The other measures outcomes.
Waydev measures activity (commits, lines, active days). Glue measures code health. Waydev might show activity increased—Glue reveals whether the code got healthier or just busier.
Many engineering teams avoid this because activity metrics don't measure outcomes. Glue doesn't measure developers—it measures code. Different purposes.
Not necessarily. A developer might make one important commit that solves a critical problem. Or make many commits fixing the same issue repeatedly. Commits count activity, not impact. Only code analysis (Glue's approach) measures actual outcomes.
Keep reading
