Comparison
LYNCE vs Gard, honestly.
The two closest tools in automated creative proofreading, compared on what each actually does, from their own documentation.
What each product is built for.
Gard is a desktop app (Windows and macOS) that proofreads finished images in JPEG, PNG and WebP for spelling, grammar and punctuation, in 50+ languages. Its automation story is strong for studios: watch folders scan designs the moment they’re saved, batches handle volume, and corrections export as PDFs or shareable links.
LYNCE is a web app built around a different question: not just “is this spelled right?” but “is this true?” Creatives and multi-page PDFs are read against the brief, the price list, the approved copy and every other version in the scan. Each finding carries a severity, a suggested fix and the source it contradicts. See what creative QA covers.
Same artwork. Two different readings.
The spelling pass
What image proofreaders like Gard are built for and genuinely good at: typos, grammar and punctuation read straight off the artwork, across many languages.
€45€40
Fix The campaign brief approves €40.
The context pass
LYNCE reads the same artwork as claims to verify: prices against the price list, dates against the calendar, offers against the brief, versions against each other. Typos are caught on the way through.
The facts, side by side.
| What | LYNCE | Gard |
|---|---|---|
| Core job | Context-aware creative QA: content checked against briefs, references and other versions | AI proofreading of image text: spelling, grammar, punctuation on visuals |
| Runs as | Web app, nothing to install | Desktop app for Windows and macOS |
| Input files | Images (JPG, PNG, WEBP) and multi-page PDFs | Images (JPEG, PNG, WebP) |
| Reference / brief comparison | Yes: creatives verified against uploaded briefs, price lists and approved copy, source quoted in findings | Not listed on their site |
| Cross-creative consistency | Yes: versions scanned together are checked against each other | Not listed on their site |
| Translation checks | Yes: language versions verified against a master you attach | Not listed on their site |
| Automation | Batch campaign scans in one scan | Watch folders that scan designs on save; batch uploads |
| Languages | Reads creatives across many languages | 50+ languages listed |
| Findings | Pinned to the artwork with severity (must-fix / inconsistency / worth checking) and a suggested fix | Highlighted on the visual with corrections; exportable PDF; shareable correction links |
| Sharing | Report links that open without a login | Shareable correction links |
| Free tier | 20 free credits (one-time) | Free plan with 5 scans per month |
| Paid plans | Capacity-based (1 image = 1 credit, 1 analysed PDF page = 1 credit). See pricing | From $24/mo (Starter, 1 seat) · $74/mo (Pro, 5 seats) |
Gard details are taken from Gard’s public website (trygard.com) as of August 2026 and may change; verify current features and pricing with Gard before deciding. “Not listed” means we couldn’t find the capability documented there, not that it’s impossible.
Who should pick which.
Choose LYNCE if…
- Your errors are factual, not just typographic: wrong prices, dates, offers, claims.
- You work against client briefs, price lists or approved copy and want them enforced automatically.
- You deliver campaigns in versions and languages that must agree with each other.
- You proofread long PDFs page by page: brochures, catalogues, menus.
- You want a web app and shareable no-login reports for clients and teammates.
Gard fits better if…
- Your core need is spelling, grammar and punctuation on image exports, at volume.
- Watch-folder automation on a desktop machine matches how your studio works.
- Your assets are images only, and per-seat desktop licensing suits the team.
LYNCE vs Gard, answered.
The final check, before it goes live.
Give the finished creative one more QA pass before publish, send or print.
Keep comparing