Side by side
revive vs Staticcheck
Both stand on linters. Which one you can start free with, which one lets you read the code, and what each costs once you pay.
Free plan Self-hosted
revive provides broad, configurable Go linting with suppression comments, extensibility, and many output formats. Its documented speed claims and CI integrations are useful, but type-checking rules have environment dependencies.
Visit revive Free plan LinuxMacWindows
Pick Staticcheck if you need a no-cost Go analyzer covering bugs, performance, simplification, style, and quick fixes. Its editor, command-line, and CI paths make it adaptable, with configuration available in TOML. Look elsewhere if you need a linter for languages other than Go or support outside its listed platforms.
Visit StaticcheckThe facts
| revive | Staticcheck | |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Open source | Not published | Not published |
| Runs on | Self-hosted | Linux, Mac, Windows |
| Lowest paid plan | Not published | Free or on request |
| Plans published | None | 1 |
| Maker | Not published | Not published |
| Website | revive.run | staticcheck.dev |
| On linters | #32 of 33 | #28 of 33 |
revive: what it does well
- 100+ rules for Go code quality
- TOML settings control severity and exit codes
- Multiple terminal and CI output formats
- Custom rules and formatters supported
- Free, self-hosted, MIT licensed
What to know first
- Type-checking rules depend on GOROOT and GOPATH
- Some setups may produce unexpected type-checking behavior
- Supports one language: Go
Staticcheck: what it does well
- Free and open-source
- More than 150 Go checks
- Designed to limit false positives
- Editor integration with automatic fixes
- GitHub Actions support for CI
What to know first
- Supports only Go projects
- Each release supports two recent Go versions
- Package-manager releases may lag behind
- Runs on Linux, macOS, and Windows only
Alternatives to revive Alternatives to Staticcheck The whole list