# Request Matching: WireMock vs Powerduck

**Short answer:** WireMock matches more conditions than any spec-derived tool, including JSONPath and XPath; a spec mock matches what the contract declares. The first is the right tool for complex matching inside JVM tests; the second is the right surface for keeping every client aligned to the API.

## What deep matching is built for

URL patterns, headers, query parameters, body content, JSONPath, and XPath. It is the right tool for a precise, bespoke condition.

## What contract matching is built for

| Property | Deep matching | Contract matching |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Conditions | Very broad | Declared by spec |
| Language | JVM | Any |
| Validity | As written | By construction |
| Maintenance | Code | Spec |

## Why the declared surface matters

A cross-language team needs every client aligned to the same contract, not to a bespoke JVM condition. The spec mock serves that surface.

## The decision rule

Use deep matching for a complex JVM condition. Use contract matching for a shared, language-agnostic target.

This is part of the [Powerduck vs WireMock comparison](https://www.powerduck.com/blog/powerduck-vs-wiremock/). Next, read [contract tests vs stubs](https://www.powerduck.com/blog/contract-tests-vs-wiremock-stubs/).