This article examines how candidates' integrity matters relative to other personal attributes shaping voters' perceptions of political competence, and how this valuation is moderated by voters' democratic attitudes. We argue that, while voters assess candidate competences differently depending on their ideological positioning, they broadly agree on the importance of integrity as a political trait. However, the degree to which integrity is prioritized varies systematically with the perceptions that voters have of democracy's relationship to corruption. Using a unique survey-embedded conjoint experiment in Portugal, we find that voters are willing to trade off ideology for integrity, choosing candidates outside their ideological camp if they perceive them as honest. Further analyses also reveal that voters who perceive democracy as more vulnerable to corruption, thus reflecting greater skepticism toward democratic institutions, place significantly greater weight on candidate integrity relative to other competences, treating it as a primary moral compass for political leadership. By contrast, voters who trust democracy as a check on corruption prioritize a candidate's capacity to deliver durable, ideologically aligned solutions. These findings contribute to debates on public trust, good governance, and democratic legitimacy, revealing a divide in how voters with different democratic attitudes anchor their political judgments. Pro-democratic voters appear to rely on institutions and systemic checks as guarantors of good governance, treating candidate integrity as one competence among many. Those more skeptical of democracy, by contrast, place greater weight on the individual moral character of leaders, a pattern consistent with a personalistic understanding of political authority. This distinction may carry broader implications for how citizens engage with liberal and illiberal political alternatives.