# Shareglint as analternative to HTMLCSStoImage

The closest to us conceptually: you send HTML, you get an image.

## Before you read on

This is the most honest comparison on the list, because we do almost the same thing. HTMLCSStoImage is older, has a longer track record and Zapier, Make and n8n integrations, and imposes no notion of a template — if your HTML is generated fresh every time, their model fits better than ours.

## The differences, plainly

| What | HTMLCSStoImage | Shareglint |
|---|---|---|
| Price per 1,000 images | $14 | $4.50 ($9 for 2,000) |
| 10,000 images a month | $69 | $29 |
| Model | HTML in every request | Template stored once, then just the fields |
| Text auto-fitting | On your side | Built in (data-autofit) |
| Cache for identical renders | Yes | Yes, and it costs no quota |
| Ready-made OG templates | No | A built-in library, available immediately on every account |

HTMLCSStoImage pricing ($14 / mo, 1,000 images) comes from their own public page, checked 2026-10. If something has changed — tell us and we will fix it.

## Which one to pick

- **Take HTMLCSStoImage:** Every request carries different HTML generated on your side, and you do not want to maintain templates at a vendor.
- **Take Shareglint:** The same layout with swapped fields — then storing the template once saves bandwidth, and you get text auto-fitting and caching without writing anything.