Gerrit is pretty crap compared to critique. It has a workflow that works for Android, but critique is really much better.

The essential thing is that Gerrit is a swiss army knife review tool for git, whereas Critique is able to be consistent and fluid because it only has to worry about working with the standard workflow in Piper/CitC (and now fig I guess)

I agree Critique is much nicer, but mostly because it's more consistent and doesn't have to deal with all the oddities of git.

Can you be more specific?

Gerrit does in fact impose a particular workflow: each commit is the atomic unit of review.

This, BTW, is a beautiful thing. Most of the idiocy of github is trying to have multi-commit pull requests. Then they had to bodge on that "suggested changes" nonsense instead of having proper dependency tracking between pull requests.

When each commit is the unit of review, you get pull request dependencies and recursive pull requests automatically. Instead of suggesting changes you can simply create a commit with your suggestion which has the reviewed commit as its parent. It's so simple yet so much more powerful.

What do you think Gerrit is missing compared to Critique?

Graphite[0] is also similar in that space(code review platform built on GitHub), the CLI could use some work but combined with the web UI it scratches that same itch that Critique did for me

[0] https://graphite.dev/