rev.ng

rev.ng is a reverse-engineering decompiler built for analysts who want C output alongside structure recovery and repeatable workflows. It is a strong fit for work across several architectures, but the closed beta makes the UI a less certain choice for teams that need broad access now.

Overview

rev.ng combines decompilation with tools for making analysis more structured: it emits standard-compliant C, detects data structures using information across functions, and supports API-driven interaction. Its core pipeline is Free Software, while the UI is a commercial offering in cloud and standalone forms. The product’s mixed licensing suits users who value an open pipeline but should not be mistaken for an entirely open-source application.

The interface is described as usable in a browser or as a standalone app, with the same experience in either deployment style. The site invites users to join a closed beta for the UI, so availability is the central practical caveat for anyone planning a team workflow around it.

Key features

• Structure recovery: rev.ng detects linked lists, structs, arrays and arrays of structs using interprocedural information. This can help analysts make sense of how a program organizes data, while still leaving interpretation to the user.
• C decompilation: Syntactically valid, standard-compliant C gives the output a useful form for further analysis rather than leaving users with disassembly alone.
• Architecture and import support: Included architectures are x86, x86-64, ARM, AArch64, MIPS and S390X. Imports include ELF, PE/COFF, Mach-O, DWARF, PDB and IDB, giving it breadth across common binary and debug-information formats.
• Automation and workflow controls: An HTTP API supports client-server interaction, while YAML files can define functions, edit prototypes and rename items. These are meaningful advantages for repeatable or scripted analysis.
• Project collaboration: Projects can be shared by URL. Public projects include two collaborators per project; users needing private visibility or more collaborators should compare the project plans before settling on a workflow.
• Deployment and support: Cloud and standalone use are described as offering the same experience. Questions, feedback and problem reports can go to Discourse, with Discord and email also offered as contact routes.

Pricing

rev.ng has a free plan and several project options, but the plans beyond the free core do not have published prices. That leaves teams needing to budget for cloud hosting, private projects or offline use without a confirmed cost.

• Open source: price not listed. It includes the open-source core, runs anywhere, supports private projects and covers all architectures. This is the clearest starting point for users who want the pipeline and private work without committing to a cloud project plan.
• Public project: price not listed; includes two collaborators per project. It suits small groups comfortable with public project visibility, but is not the fit for confidential work.
• Private project: custom pricing; billed TBD. It includes cloud use, all architectures, unlimited collaborators and private visibility. Choose it when shared, private cloud projects matter more than a known price.
• Standalone: custom pricing; billed TBD. It includes fully standalone, offline use, all architectures, unlimited collaborators and private visibility. It is the relevant option for teams that need offline deployment, though its cost remains uncertain.

Platforms

rev.ng lists API, Linux, macOS, web and Windows support. The browser interface and standalone app provide two ways to access the UI, while the API offers a separate route for automation.

Who it's for

rev.ng is best suited to reverse engineers who need multi-architecture decompilation, structure recovery and a workflow that can be controlled through scripts or YAML. It is also worth considering for collaborators who can work through shared project URLs. Users who require a generally available UI, fixed commercial pricing or private collaboration beyond the public-project limit should look elsewhere or wait for clearer availability and terms.

Pros and cons

• Pros
  • Structure detection adds context to C output across multiple functions.
  • The HTTP API and YAML controls support automation and repeatable analysis.
  • Six architectures are included by default, with imports spanning major executable and debug formats.
  • The Free Software pipeline can run anywhere, including private projects under the Open source plan.
• Cons
  • The UI is in closed beta, limiting its suitability for teams that need dependable general access.
  • Public projects cap collaboration at two people and make that route unsuitable for private work.
  • Private cloud and standalone plans have custom pricing, so costs cannot be compared in advance.
  • The UI is commercial even though the core decompilation pipeline is Free Software.

Alternatives

For a broader set of choices, see Decompiler Software and Reverse Engineering Tools.

• Binary Ninja is worth comparing for its free evaluation and education plan, though that tier limits users to five architectures and excludes API or plugin access.
• IDA Pro offers a free tier for x86-32 and x86-64 disassembly plus two cloud-based decompilers; choose it if that narrower free scope fits better.
• JEB has a free Community Edition for x86 and x86-64 decompilation, aimed at researchers, students, hobbyists and nonprofit reverse engineers.
• Recaf is another free option for Linux, macOS and Windows.
• Ghidra is a free alternative for Linux, macOS and Windows.
• RetDec is a free, open-source alternative under the MIT license, with Linux, macOS, self-hosted and Windows platforms.
• Relyze is a Windows alternative with freemium pricing.
• Boomerang is a free alternative for Windows, macOS and Linux.

Verdict

Choose rev.ng if you want an open decompilation pipeline that pairs standard-compliant C with structure recovery, API access and YAML workflow controls across several architectures. Its strongest case is the combination of analysis depth and automation; its main drawback is that the UI remains in closed beta, with private cloud and standalone pricing unresolved. If dependable UI access or a known project cost is essential, compare alternatives before committing.