The core record of Yechezkel's conduct in exile is the prophecy itself: he receives his call while already among the exiles by the Chebar Canal in the fifth year of Jehoiachin's exile (Yechezkel 1:1-3), is appointed a watchman charged to warn the wicked on pain of personal accountability (Yechezkel 3:16-27), continues to be sought out by the elders for guidance even when God refuses to answer them (Yechezkel 20:1-3), and is struck mute until the fugitive's report of Jerusalem's fall reopens his mouth (Yechezkel 33:21-33).
The Radak and the Malbim both read Yechezkel 3:15 as describing him sitting among the exiles at Tel Aviv in stunned silence for seven days, overwhelmed and unable to speak until he received a specific word from God (Radak on Yechezkel 3:15, Malbim on Yechezkel 3:15).
The Peri Tzadik draws a sharp contrast between the exiles' grief and Yechezkel's own reaction, teaching that when Israel was exiled to Babylonia everyone else went in bitterness of soul while Yechezkel alone went with great joy, because he sensed that the light of holiness God would reveal to Israel in Babylonia exceeded what they had experienced in their own land (Peri Tzadik, Sukkot 18).
Yirmiyahu's letter to the exiles sets the broader communal standard of conduct in Babylonia — building houses, planting, marrying, and seeking the welfare of the city — against which figures like Ahab and Zedekiah are condemned for false prophecy and adultery (Yirmiyahu 29:1-14, Yirmiyahu 29:21-23), giving a backdrop of praiseworthy versus condemned behavior among the exiles generally, distinct from Yechezkel's own personal conduct.
Chazal's comparison in the Gemara does not evaluate Yechezkel's moral conduct but rather his manner of describing his vision: Rava teaches that Yechezkel and Yeshayahu saw the same vision, but Yechezkel, like a villager overwhelmed by the king's palace, described it in elaborate detail, while Yeshayahu, like a city dweller accustomed to royalty, passed over it briefly (Chagigah 13b).
The Zohar, as explained by the Sulam, raises the question of whether it was proper for Yechezkel to reveal so much of what he saw, since one admitted into the king's inner chamber would be expected to keep such sights private, and even wonders whether his thoroughgoing disclosure suggests he was not whole in his understanding; yet it concludes that Yechezkel was a trustworthy prophet who revealed only what he was given permission by God to reveal, and that everything he disclosed was necessary (Sulam on Zohar, Shemot 6, Sulam on Zohar, Shemot 11, Sulam on Zohar, Shemot 58).
Sefer HaIkkarim places Yechezkel on a lower prophetic rung than clearer prophets, arguing that once in exile his prophecies came through parables and riddles rather than plain meaning, a matter so troubling that Yechezkel himself complained to God that the people dismissed him as a mere riddle-teller (Sefer HaIkkarim, Maamar 3 17:2).
The Abarbanel likewise treats Yechezkel favorably, noting that his name reflects divine providence because he strengthened the hearts of Israel through his prophecies, that he uniquely foretold the resurrection of the dead, Gog and Magog, and the final redemption, and that he died and was buried in exile, with Jehoiachin later building a synagogue over his grave in his honor (Abarbanel).
His later vision of the divine Presence filling the rebuilt Temple, matching what he had seen by the Chebar Canal, shows his prophetic activity persisting and culminating even from within exile, reinforcing that his conduct throughout was bound up with continuing to receive and transmit the word of God (Yechezkel 43:1-5, Yechezkel 37:11-12).