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 (formerly imgProof) proofreads the copy in finished images and PDFs, in a web app and in desktop apps for Windows and macOS. Its homepage names spelling, grammar, consistency and translation errors, in 50+ languages; its guides describe flags for spelling, grammar, punctuation, repeated words and awkward wording. Its automation story is strong for studios: watch folders check new exports as they’re saved, batch scans handle volume, and corrections export as PDFs or shareable links. Checking prices, dates and offers against the brief is, in its own guides, left to you.
LYNCE also runs on the web and as desktop apps for Mac and Windows, whose watched folders pick up new artwork without uploading. It is 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 the copy in images and PDFs. Their homepage names spelling, grammar, consistency and translation errors; their guides describe spelling, grammar and punctuation flags |
| Runs as | Web app, plus desktop apps for Mac and Windows | Web app, plus desktop apps for Windows and macOS |
| Input files | Images (JPG, PNG, WEBP) and multi-page PDFs | Images (JPEG, PNG, WebP) and PDFs, one scan per PDF page |
| Reference / brief comparison | Yes: creatives verified against uploaded briefs, price lists and approved copy, source quoted in findings | Not listed. Their own guides say to check prices, dates and offers against the brief or approved copy yourself |
| Cross-creative consistency | Yes: versions scanned together are checked against each other | Not listed as a check across files. Their ad-proofing FAQ says a batch scan isn’t confirmation that every placement uses the same approved offer |
| Translation checks | Yes: language versions verified against a master you attach | Translation errors are named on their homepage and copy is read in 50+ languages; checking a version against a master isn’t listed |
| Automation | Watched folders in the desktop app: new images and PDFs are picked up automatically and wait in a queue until you confirm; batch campaign scans | Watch folders that check new exports as they’re saved; batch scans |
| Languages | Reads creatives across many languages | More than 50 languages listed |
| Findings | Pinned to the artwork with severity (must-fix / inconsistency / worth checking) and a suggested fix | Highlighted on the visual with suggested corrections; corrections PDF export; shareable correction links |
| Sharing | Report links that open without a login | Shareable correction links |
| Free tier | No free tier · 7-day free trial on every plan | Free plan listed |
| Paid plans | Capacity-based (1 image = 1 credit, 1 analysed PDF page = 1 credit). See pricing | Paid plans; see their pricing page |
Gard details are taken from Gard’s public website (trygard.com) as of 22 October 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 check long PDFs against a source: a catalogue against the price list, a menu against the approved copy.
- You want every finding to carry a severity, the source it contradicts and a suggested fix, in a report that opens without a login.
Gard fits better if…
- Your core need is spelling, grammar and punctuation on image and PDF exports, at volume.
- You want every file scanned the moment it is saved, without a confirm step.
- You’re happy to check prices and offers against the brief yourself, and want to start on a free plan.
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