# Redocly Linting vs Powerduck Validation

**Short answer:** Linting enforces a style guide and catches contract problems in CI; in-studio validation surfaces the same class of problems where you edit. The first is a governed pipeline; the second keeps the editor and the checks speaking the same vocabulary without a separate rules file.

## What a linting pipeline is built for

Custom rules, style guides, and a hard gate in CI. That is the strongest reason to adopt a linting specialist in a large organization.

## What in-studio validation is built for

| Property | Separate linting | In-studio validation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Where problems appear | CI | At the edit |
| Custom rules | Yes | Schema-aware |
| Separate pipeline | Yes | No |
| Feedback timing | After commit | Immediate |

## Why the timing matters

Catching a contract problem at the edit is cheaper than catching it in a CI run after the commit. The studio validates against the dialect the file declares.

## How they fit

Keep the linting gate for the organization's style rules and the in-studio validation for immediate feedback. They are complementary, not rivals.

This is part of the [Powerduck vs Redocly comparison](https://www.powerduck.com/blog/powerduck-vs-redocly/). Next, read [Redoc vs the studio reference](https://www.powerduck.com/blog/redoc-vs-powerduck-api-reference/).