Abstract We compare the gravity wave (GW) parameterizations used in the IPSLCM6 climate model with the GWs resolved in the ICON global model with 5 km horizontal resolution. The parameterizations are run offline using ICON fields coarse‐grained to a 100 km grid and compared to the GWs with smaller scales that are resolved in ICON. Overall, the drags are comparable, the momentum fluxes align well, and each GW parameterization (fronts, convection, and mountains) plays a role at geographical locations consistent with ICON. Among the differences, we find that in ICON, GWs are substantially attenuated above the subtropical jets; this is underestimated by the parameterizations. It also seems that, in this comparison, ICON underestimates frontal waves in the mid‐latitudes, that the parameterizations underestimate the convective waves in the tropics, and that the mountain waves are more alike. Plain Language Summary To simulate the middle atmosphere, climate models use parameterizations of small‐scale gravity waves that are generated in the troposphere and break in the middle atmosphere. The direct in situ observations of these waves are sparse and non‐global, while remotely sensed satellite observations are more global but have quite coarse resolutions. To compensate for these deficiencies, the recent high‐resolution global simulations of the atmosphere are promising because they explicitly solve a good fraction of the gravity wave spectra and their dissipation. Here we show that these simulations can help to validate relationships of parameterized gravity waves to their sources and to adjust their characteristic phase speed. Such comparisons can also establish whether high‐resolution simulations resolve enough GW momentum flux to simulate the observed middle atmosphere climate. Key Points In the stratosphere, parameterizations simulate well the regions where gravity wave fluxes are large, compared to a high‐resolution model An attenuation of the resolved gravity waves above the subtropical jets is described by the parameterization but is underestimated The parameterizations give good estimates of the mountain waves but underestimate the convective waves and overestimate the frontal waves