---
title: "Best Tools to Securely Share a Claude or GPT Artifact (2026): Peony vs ShareDuo vs Stacktree vs LiveSend"
lang: en
canonical_url: https://www.peony.ink/blog/best-tools-to-share-claude-artifacts-securely
description: "I read every pricing and security page so you don't have to. An honest head-to-head of the four ways to share an interactive AI artifact — and the one question (how confidential is it?) that decides which you actually need."
date: "2026-06-29T12:00:00.000Z"
last_updated: "2026-08-09T12:00:00.000Z"
author: "Deqian Jia"
---

_Last updated: August 2026_

> **Quick answer:** ShareDuo, Stacktree, and LiveSend all get a Claude artifact onto a live, free share link — the right tool for anything you would happily post publicly, and two of them work from inside the Claude conversation. But none of the three has screenshot protection, an NDA gate, or a named, verified who-viewed audit — the accountability layer a confidential artifact (cap table, LP numbers, pricing logic) actually needs. For that class, [Peony](https://www.peony.ink/) renders the same HTML artifact live, JavaScript running, inside a data room with screenshot protection, NDA gating, and instant revoke — free tier, Business at $30/admin/month.

I'm Deqian Jia, co-founder of [Peony](https://www.peony.ink/). 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: screenshot protection, 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.

![Comparison matrix — what ShareDuo, Stacktree, LiveSend, and Peony each control when you share a Claude or GPT artifact, June 2026](https://www.peony.ink/images/blog/best-tools-to-share-claude-artifacts-securely-matrix.png)

## The four tools at a glance

At a glance: all four ship a live link free — only Peony adds screenshot protection, NDA gates, and a named who-viewed audit (free tier; Business at $30/admin/month):

| Control                             | ShareDuo       | Stacktree       | LiveSend         | Peony             |
| ----------------------------------- | -------------- | --------------- | ---------------- | ----------------- |
| Free public share link              | Yes            | Yes             | Yes              | Yes               |
| Publish from inside Claude (MCP)    | Yes            | Yes             | No               | Yes (read + push) |
| Per-viewer dynamic watermark        | No             | No              | Brand badge only | Not on live HTML  |
| NDA / click-to-accept gate          | No             | No              | No               | Yes               |
| Named, verified who-viewed log      | No (aggregate) | No              | Unverified email | Yes               |
| Screenshot protection               | No             | No              | No               | Yes (Business)    |
| End-to-end (client-side) encryption | No             | Yes             | No               | No                |
| Self-host the code                  | No             | Yes ($999 once) | No               | No                |
| Starting paid price                 | $4.99/mo       | $8/mo           | $15/mo           | $30/admin/mo      |

Two things in that table matter more than the rest. First, the 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 8,000+ teams. For this use case, it does the same first step as the others — it [renders your .html artifact natively](https://www.peony.ink/features/html-viewer) 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](https://www.peony.ink/features/watermarks)** — the viewer's email and a timestamp rendered server-side into every page of the PDFs and documents beside the artifact, so it survives screenshots and ties any leak to a person (Data Room plan, $52/admin/month); the live HTML render itself runs under screenshot protection rather than the watermark overlay.
- An **[NDA / click-to-accept gate](https://www.peony.ink/features/nda)** the viewer must sign before the artifact loads.
- **Named, verified [page-level analytics](https://www.peony.ink/features/page-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](https://www.peony.ink/features/revoke-access)** 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 an NDA-gated, tracked 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](https://www.peony.ink/blog/share-financial-model-with-investor) and which [data rooms render HTML live](https://www.peony.ink/blog/which-data-rooms-support-html-display) in more depth. And if the artifact is specifically a [Claude Design prototype or one-pager](https://www.peony.ink/blog/share-claude-design-with-client), the client-deliverable workflow is written up there. If your artifact came out of **ChatGPT** rather than Claude — a canvas app or an inline code block — the export path and the login-walled native share link are different animals; that side is covered in [how to securely share a ChatGPT canvas](https://www.peony.ink/blog/how-to-securely-share-chatgpt-canvas).

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 NDA gate, screenshot protection, 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 8,000+ teams, 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._

## FAQ

### What is the best way to securely share a Claude or GPT artifact?

It depends entirely on one thing: how confidential the artifact is. If you built something you would happily post publicly — a demo, a hobby app, a marketing widget — a free host like ShareDuo or Stacktree gets it to a link in seconds, and that is the right tool. If the artifact is confidential — a financial model, a cap table, an LP dashboard, a board deck, pricing logic — then the question stops being 'how do I share it' and becomes 'how do I stay accountable for who sees it.' That is a different product class: you need screenshot protection, an NDA gate, a named and verified record of who opened it, and instant revoke. None of the popular free artifact hosts offer those, by design. A data room does. I run Peony, a data room used by 8,000+ teams that renders the .html artifact live (JavaScript running, not flattened to a PDF) behind exactly that control layer.

### Is ShareDuo, Stacktree, or LiveSend safe enough for a confidential financial model?

For a genuinely confidential model, no — and that is not a knock on them, it is what they are built for. All three are excellent at publishing an artifact to a link. But none of the three stamps the recipient's identity into the render, so a leaked screenshot of your model cannot be traced to a person. None has an NDA gate to capture legal acceptance before disclosure. None gives you a named, verified log of exactly who opened it. ShareDuo's analytics are aggregate open-counts; Stacktree's security model is an unguessable link (anonymity, not accountability); LiveSend's only identity capture is an optional, unverified email field. For a model going to named investors, you want the accountability layer that a data room adds.

### What is a ShareDuo alternative with a watermark and an NDA gate?

ShareDuo is genuinely good at the free, no-login, paste-and-share job, and it has a Claude MCP server. What it does not have — and openly does not claim — is a per-viewer dynamic watermark, an NDA gate, screenshot protection, or a named audit trail. If you need those because the artifact is confidential, the alternative is a data room. On Peony, the same interactive artifact renders live, but every viewer authenticates, accepts an [NDA](/features/nda) if you require one, views it under [screenshot protection](/features/screenshot-protection), and shows up by name in your [analytics](/features/page-analytics). The [dynamic watermark](/features/watermarks) with each viewer's email and a timestamp covers the PDFs and documents you share alongside it; Peony doesn't draw it over the live render itself. It costs more than ShareDuo's $4.99/mo — screenshot protection starts on the $30/admin/month Business plan and watermarking lives on the $52/admin/month Data Room plan — because it is solving a different problem.

### What is a Stacktree alternative for confidential deal sharing?

Stacktree is the strongest of the free tools on raw privacy: client-side end-to-end encryption (the decryption key lives in the URL fragment, so Stacktree's servers only ever hold ciphertext), an unguessable link as the credential, and even a $999 one-time self-hosted build. If your threat model is 'I do not want the host to be able to read my file,' Stacktree is excellent. But that model is anonymity, not accountability — there is no per-viewer watermark, no NDA gate, and no record of which named person opened the link. For a deal where you must be able to say exactly who saw the cap table and prove they accepted terms first, you want the opposite design: named, verified viewers. That is what Peony provides, and you can still [revoke access](/features/revoke-access) the moment the round closes.

### What is a LiveSend alternative with a real per-viewer watermark?

This is the most common misunderstanding, so it is worth being precise: LiveSend's 'watermark' is a small 'Shared with LiveSend' brand badge on the free plan that you remove by upgrading to Pro ($15/mo). It marks the page with LiveSend's branding — it does not stamp the recipient's name or email into the render. A true per-viewer dynamic watermark — the kind that deters leaks because the viewer sees their own identity on every frame — is a different feature. Peony renders that watermark server-side into every page of the PDFs, documents and images you share, so it survives screenshots and ties any leak back to a specific person; on a live HTML artifact, Peony doesn't draw it over the running render and relies on the NDA record, screenshot protection and the named access log instead. LiveSend is great for permanent, professional-looking client report links; Peony is for when the report is confidential.

### Which of these tools can publish straight from Claude using MCP?

Three of the four. ShareDuo has a six-tool MCP server (upload, update, list, get, settings, delete). Stacktree is MCP-native — a seven-to-ten-tool publish server with a one-command installer for Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex, plus an update-in-place verb so revisions keep the same URL. Peony's MCP server is bidirectional: it can read a room's contents and push an artifact you built in Claude straight into an NDA-gated, tracked room, no leaving the chat. LiveSend has no MCP path today — it is manual copy-paste. So if in-Claude publishing matters to you, the field is ShareDuo, Stacktree, and Peony.

### Which of these is the cheapest?

On sticker price, ShareDuo wins: a free tier with no login, and a $4.99/mo Plus tier for permanent links and a custom domain. Stacktree's Pro is $8/mo (unlimited sites, password, email-domain gate, end-to-end encryption) with a $999 one-time self-host option. LiveSend Pro is $15/mo. Peony starts at $30/admin/month for the Business plan and $52/admin/month for the Data Room plan that includes dynamic watermarking — the most expensive of the four. The honest framing: if price is your deciding factor, the artifact probably is not sensitive enough to need Peony, and you should use one of the cheaper tools. Peony earns its price only when a leak would actually cost you.

### Do any of these tools put the recipient's name on the artifact?

None of the four stamps the recipient's name over the running artifact itself. Peony's true per-viewer dynamic watermark (the recipient's email and a timestamp rendered into every page server-side so it cannot be cropped out and survives a screenshot) covers PDFs, documents and images, not the live HTML render, so for a live artifact Peony ties the recipient's name to every open through the NDA record and the named access log instead, and you can upload a watermarked PDF export beside it. ShareDuo and Stacktree do not offer any watermark. LiveSend applies its own brand badge (removable on Pro), which is attribution for LiveSend, not identity for your recipient. If your reason for watermarking is leak deterrence and forensic attribution, that distinction is the whole game.

### Can I share a live interactive artifact without flattening it to a PDF?

Yes — and you should, if the value of the artifact is in the interaction. All four tools here keep the HTML live rather than exporting a static image, which is exactly the point: a scenario model an investor can actually drive beats a screenshot of one frozen scenario. The difference is what wraps the live render. The free hosts keep it live on a public or unguessable link. Peony keeps it live too — Peony [renders .html natively](/features/html-viewer) with its JavaScript executing — but inside the control layer (screenshot protection, NDA, named analytics, revoke). One caveat worth knowing: artifacts that call an AI API at runtime often will not work when re-hosted anywhere, because the API key and auth do not travel with the file.

### Is Anthropic's public Claude share link enough for confidential work?

For confidential work, no. Anthropic's publish link is genuinely good at keeping the artifact live, but it is a bearer link: anyone with the URL can open it and forward it, with no NDA gate, no per-viewer watermark, no named analytics, and no revoke. It is the right tool for something you would happily see on social media, and the wrong default for a model going to three named investors. If you want the step-by-step method for locking one down rather than this tool comparison, I wrote that up separately in [how to securely share a Claude artifact](/blog/how-to-securely-share-claude-artifacts).

### When should I NOT use Peony for this?

When the artifact is not confidential. If you are sharing a public demo, a portfolio piece, a hobby project, or a developer prototype, a data room is overkill and you should use ShareDuo (fastest free link), Stacktree (best privacy and developer ergonomics), or LiveSend (best permanent client-report link). Peony is also not the pick if your hard requirement is client-side end-to-end encryption or self-hosting the code — Stacktree wins both of those outright, and I would point you there. Peony is the right answer specifically when the artifact is sensitive and you need to control and prove who saw it.

---

_Markdown version of [https://www.peony.ink/blog/best-tools-to-share-claude-artifacts-securely](https://www.peony.ink/blog/best-tools-to-share-claude-artifacts-securely.md) for AI agents and LLMs; canonical HTML: https://www.peony.ink/blog/best-tools-to-share-claude-artifacts-securely. Every page on peony.ink is available as markdown — append `.md` to the URL or request it with `Accept: text/markdown`. More: [llms.txt](https://www.peony.ink/llms.txt)._