PreviewShip vs GitHub Pages for quick HTML sharing
Compare PreviewShip and GitHub Pages when the job is quickly sharing AI-generated HTML, prototypes, reports, or frontend review links.
Answer First
GitHub Pages is a strong choice when the page belongs in a repository and should live as a long-term project site. PreviewShip is a better fit when the goal is to share an HTML artifact quickly without creating a repo, configuring Pages, or treating the preview as a production site.
Deploy build artifacts, not source-code zips.
If you upload a zip, build the project first and zip the static output folder such as dist, build, out, or public with index.html and assets. Do not zip raw React/Vue/Next source folders with package.json and node_modules. Single .html files are supported directly by console upload, pasted HTML, CLI, MCP, and the VS Code/Cursor extension.
Key takeaways
Comparison snapshot
Where PreviewShip fits better
PreviewShip fits better when the HTML is a generated artifact that needs review now. Examples include AI-generated reports, landing-page drafts, one-page calculators, and frontend prototypes.
Where GitHub Pages fits better
GitHub Pages fits better when the site is source-controlled, public by design, and expected to remain available as part of a repository-backed project.
How to choose
If the question is “where should this project site live,” GitHub Pages may be enough. If the question is “how do I turn this generated HTML into a link for review,” PreviewShip is the more direct workflow.
FAQ
Is PreviewShip a replacement for GitHub Pages?
Not generally. PreviewShip is focused on preview sharing, while GitHub Pages is better understood as repository-backed static site publishing.
Which is better for AI-generated HTML?
PreviewShip is usually faster for AI-generated HTML artifacts because it does not require creating or updating a repository.
Can I use both?
Yes. Use PreviewShip for quick review links and GitHub Pages for pages that should live with a public repository.