Best Tools to Securely Share a Claude or GPT Artifact (2026): Peony vs ShareDuo vs Stacktree vs LiveSend

I'm Deqian Jia, co-founder of Peony. I build the part of our product that takes a raw .html file — the kind Claude or GPT hands you when you ask it for an interactive financial model, a dashboard, or an ROI calculator — and renders it live, with its JavaScript actually running, inside a security layer. So when a new crop of "share your Claude artifact" tools showed up, I did the unglamorous thing: I sat down and read every pricing page, security page, and docs page for the three most-cited ones. This is the honest map I wish existed when I started.

Here is the punchline up front, because it reorders the whole decision: getting an artifact onto a shareable link is a solved problem everywhere. ShareDuo, Stacktree, and LiveSend all do it well, and two of them can do it from inside the Claude conversation. The thing that actually differs between these tools — the thing that should decide your choice — is the accountability layer: what you can hold a viewer to after they open the link. That is where the tools split into two classes, and where most comparison posts go quiet.

What actually separates these four tools?

The honest answer: not the part you think. They all keep the artifact live instead of flattening it to a dead PDF. They all give you a link. The real fork is how confidential the thing you built is, and therefore how much control you need over who sees it and what they can do with it.

That single question sorts everything:

If you would happily post the artifact publicly, you want the fastest, cheapest way to a link — and a free host is the correct tool. If a leak would genuinely cost you — because it is a cap table, a model, LP numbers, board metrics, or pricing logic — you need a layer the free tools deliberately do not have: a per-viewer watermark, an NDA gate, a named and verified record of who opened it, and instant revoke.

Across all three free tools I researched, here is what I found for the controls a confidential sender actually needs: none has a per-viewer dynamic watermark, none has an NDA gate, and none has a named, verified who-viewed audit. That is not a flaw in them. It is a statement about who they are for. They are publishing tools. A data room is an accountability tool. Below is the same comparison at a glance, then an honest review of each.

The four tools at a glance

Two things in that table matter more than the rest. First, the watermark / NDA / named-audit rows are blank for all three free tools and filled only for the data room — that is the accountability gap in one glance. Second, look at the bottom two rows: Stacktree genuinely beats everyone, including Peony, on end-to-end encryption and self-hosting. I left those wins in the table on purpose, because pretending otherwise would make the rest of this untrustworthy.

ShareDuo: who is it for, and where does it stop?

ShareDuo (shareduo.com) is the tool to beat for sheer speed. You paste or drop your HTML, optionally set a password, and you get a link that anyone can open in any browser — no account to upload, no Claude subscription to view. The free tier includes password protection, aggregate view analytics, and a noindex-by-default setting so the page stays out of search. Permanent links and a custom domain live on the $4.99/mo Plus tier (capped at 10 active artifacts). It also ships a six-tool Claude MCP server, so you can say "share this" inside the conversation and get a link back.

Where it stops is precise and honest — their own blog even contrasts it against DocSend-style features: the password is one shared secret for everyone, not a per-viewer credential; there is no watermark, no NDA gate, no screenshot protection; and the analytics are aggregate open-counts, not a named log of who opened it. One more practical limit: artifacts that call an AI API at runtime will not work re-hosted, because the auth does not travel with the file.

Pick ShareDuo when: you want a free, fast, no-login public link for something that is not confidential, and you like publishing from inside Claude.

Stacktree: is "privacy-first" the same as deal-grade?

Stacktree (stacktr.ee) is the most technically interesting of the three, and the one I respect most on raw privacy. Its security model is "the unguessable URL is the credential" — a token with roughly 128 bits of entropy, served with no sitemap and an AI-crawler block. On top of that it offers genuine client-side end-to-end encryption: the page is encrypted in your browser with AES-GCM before upload, and the decryption key lives only in the URL fragment (the part after the #), which browsers never send to the server. So Stacktree the company holds only ciphertext and cannot read your artifact. It is MCP-native (a one-command installer wires it into Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex), it can replace content in place so a revised artifact keeps the same URL, and there is even a $999 one-time self-hosted build for compliance-heavy teams. Pro is $8/mo.

Its ceiling for deal work is the flip side of its strength: anonymity is not accountability. The unguessable link means anyone holding it can view — there is no named viewer identity, no per-viewer watermark, no NDA gate, and no record in the hosted product of who actually opened it. (The bundled audit log is part of the self-hosted package, on your own infrastructure, not a hosted who-saw-it report.) Forwarding the link, fragment key included, grants silent full access.

Pick Stacktree when: you are a developer or running an agent workflow, you want strong privacy-by-obscurity plus client-side encryption, and you do not need to prove which named person saw what.

LiveSend: is a permanent, tracked link enough for confidential work?

LiveSend (livesend.io) has the clearest positioning of the three: permanent, professional-looking links with open-tracking, aimed at agencies and consultants sending client reports. You copy the artifact HTML from Claude, paste it in, and get a permanent livesend.io/v/yourname/doc URL that "never expires" — explicitly pitched against the roughly 30-day ephemerality of native Claude links. You get an email when someone first opens it, plus opens, unique visitors, read time, and country. Password protection, custom expiration, 90-day analytics, and watermark removal come on Pro ($15/mo).

Two honest clarifications, because LiveSend is easy to over-read. First, the "watermark" is a LiveSend brand badge, not a per-viewer identity mark — it stamps LiveSend's branding on the free tier and is removed by paying, and it never carries your recipient's name. Second, the "custom branded URL" is a custom slug on livesend.io, not your own domain (true custom domains are on their roadmap). The only identity capture is an optional, unverified email field — anyone can type anyone's address — so the who-viewed log is real but not trustworthy for a confidential audience.

Pick LiveSend when: you send a lot of client-facing reports, you want a permanent professional link, and simple open-tracking is enough — confidentiality is not the concern.

Peony: when is a data room the right call for an artifact?

Here is where I am the biased party, so I will be specific and concede the losses. Peony is a data room used by 5,900+ customers. For this use case, it does the same first step as the others — it renders your .html artifact natively with the JavaScript running, so a model stays a working model — but it wraps that live render in the layer the free tools do not have:

• A per-viewer dynamic watermark — the viewer's email and a timestamp rendered server-side into every page, so it survives screenshots and ties any leak to a person (Data Room plan, $52/admin/month).
• An NDA / click-to-accept gate the viewer must sign before the artifact loads.
• Named, verified page-level analytics — not an aggregate count, but which authenticated person opened it, which pages they read, and for how long.
• Screenshot protection that blocks and logs OS-level capture (Business plan, $30/admin/month).
• Instant revoke the moment a round closes or a deal dies.
• A bidirectional MCP server: build the artifact in Claude, install the Peony MCP, and push it straight into a watermarked, NDA-gated room without leaving the chat.

And because it is a data room, the artifact does not have to live alone on a single link — it can sit alongside the rest of the deal in a structured room with granular per-file permissions. If you want the worked example, I wrote up sharing an interactive financial model with an investor and which data rooms render HTML live in more depth.

The concessions, stated plainly: Peony is the most expensive of the four to start, it does not offer client-side end-to-end encryption, and it does not offer a self-hosted build. If any of those three is your hard requirement, Stacktree is the better tool and I would point you there.

Who should pick what?

The decision collapses to confidentiality and what you need to prove:

• Public demo, hobby app, or marketing widget → ShareDuo. Free, fast, no login.
• Developer or agent workflow that wants real privacy and client-side encryption → Stacktree. The unguessable-link plus AES-GCM model is purpose-built for you, and you can self-host.
• Permanent, professional client-report links with light open-tracking → LiveSend Pro. Permanence is its genuine edge.
• A confidential artifact going to named people — investors, clients, a board, counterparties — where you must control and prove who saw it → Peony. The watermark, NDA, named audit, and revoke are the whole reason to pay more.

When should you not use Peony?

I will say this as clearly as I can, because it is the honest version: if the artifact is not confidential, do not use Peony. A data room is the wrong shape for a public demo or a portfolio piece — it adds login friction your audience does not need and a price your use case does not justify. Use one of the free tools. And if your non-negotiable is end-to-end client-side encryption or running the code on your own servers, Peony does not do either today; Stacktree does both, and that is the right call. Peony earns its keep in exactly one situation: the thing you built is sensitive, it is going to specific named people, and a leak would actually cost you something. That is the line.

The bottom line

Publishing an AI artifact to a live link is no longer the hard part — every tool here clears that bar, and most can do it from inside Claude. The real question is the one the free hosts are honest about not answering: after someone opens your artifact, what can you hold them to? If the answer does not matter, the cheapest tool that gets you a link is the right one, and ShareDuo, Stacktree, and LiveSend are all good. If the answer matters — because the artifact is confidential — then you need the accountability layer, and that is the category a data room exists to fill. With 5,900+ customers, that is the line we built Peony to sit on: the artifact stays alive, and so does your control over it.

---

Sources: ShareDuo, Stacktree, and LiveSend product, pricing, security, and docs pages (shareduo.com, stacktr.ee, livesend.io), reviewed June 2026; Peony product and pricing pages. Competitor plans and features change frequently — verify current details on each vendor's site before relying on them. Pricing cited is as listed in June 2026.

Disclosure: I am a co-founder of Peony. I have tried to represent each competitor accurately and credit where they win; where I am the interested party, I have said so.