Compare
Arrio vs LinearB
LinearB and Arrio sit at opposite ends of the same process. LinearB improves how work moves from code to production, and automates parts of that flow. Arrio measures what the work produced once it got there, and what it was worth. Here is how they compare.
LinearB
Delivery optimisation, from the inside.
An engineering delivery platform for engineering leaders and their teams. It connects git, project management and incident tooling to track the four DORA metrics, surface bottlenecks, and automate parts of the workflow through pull-request routing and merge rules. Built to make delivery flow better.
Arrio
Independent measurement, from the outside.
An independent read of what the software investment produces, for the people who fund it. It reads the work itself from the codebases, grounds it in cost, and reports to the CEO, CFO and CIO in business terms, including whether the AI investment is paying off. Built to govern the spend.
Side by side
Where they differ
| LinearB | Arrio | |
|---|---|---|
| Who it is built for | Engineering leaders, managers and teams improving how software gets delivered. | The budget owner. CEOs, CFOs and CIOs who fund software and answer for the return. |
| What it measures | Delivery flow: deployment frequency, lead time, change failure rate and time to restore, plus where work stalls. | What the investment produces: output and value across teams and vendors, set against cost. |
| What it does with the measure | Acts on it. Automated routing, reviewer assignment, merge rules and nudges that change how the pipeline runs. | Reports it. Arrio reads and reports; it changes nothing in your environment and delivers no work. |
| Where the data comes from | Integrations with git providers, project management tools and incident systems, read as delivery telemetry. | The work itself, read from the codebases, plus cost. Not dependent on how diligently tickets are kept. |
| Relationship to the teams measured | A platform the engineering organisation adopts and runs for itself. | An independent outside read, with no stake in how the number looks. |
| Commercial model | Per-contributor SaaS subscription, with a free DORA dashboard tier. | Not published. Speak to us about pricing and services. |
Comparison by design and audience, based on each company’s publicly stated purpose. Not a feature-by-feature ranking.
Would you like to know more about our pricing and services? Speak to our founders.
It is not either / or
Make the pipeline flow. Then ask what came out of it.
DORA metrics are a useful instrument, and automating the friction out of code review is real engineering value. Neither was designed to tell a board what the software investment returned. A team can improve every DORA metric and still build the wrong thing efficiently. That is the gap an independent value measure fills, and it sits above delivery optimisation rather than against it. Understand the wider picture in measuring software development.
What is the difference between Arrio and LinearB?
LinearB improves the delivery pipeline: it tracks the four DORA metrics, shows where work stalls, and automates parts of the workflow such as pull-request routing and merge rules. Arrio measures what the pipeline produced, in business terms, for the people funding it. One makes delivery faster and smoother. The other says what the delivery was worth.
We already have DORA metrics. Why would we need Arrio?
Because DORA measures the flow of work, not the value of it. All four DORA metrics can improve while the organisation builds things nobody needed, and none of them can tell a CFO what the software budget returned. Keep DORA for running delivery well. Arrio answers the separate question of what the investment produced.
Does Arrio automate anything in our pipeline?
No, deliberately. Arrio reads and reports; it does not route pull requests, gate merges or change anything in your environment. A measurement that also acts on the thing it measures is no longer an independent measurement, and independence is the whole point of what Arrio provides.
Can we use both?
Yes. They operate at different levels and answer to different people. LinearB reports to engineering about how work flows. Arrio reports to leadership about what the work produced. Neither replaces the other.
Sources
- LinearB, 2026 Publicly stated product positioning: an engineering delivery platform connecting git, project management and incident tooling, tracking the four DORA metrics, with workflow automation for pull-request routing and merge conditions. LinearB’s own benchmark data covers 8.1 million pull requests across 4,800 teams in 42 countries.
- Company positioning, 2026 Comparison is by design and audience, based on each company’s publicly stated purpose. Not a feature-by-feature ranking.
A faster pipeline is not the same as a better return.