display.dev vs Proxon (2026)
A side-by-side comparison of display.dev and Proxon on pricing, features, and fit, so you can decide which is right for you.
Quick answer
display.dev and Proxon are both strong choices, but they fit different needs. Choose display.dev if you mainly need sharing llm-generated reports with internal stakeholders securely — its edge is removes the need to build custom auth infrastructure for ai outputs. Choose Proxon if you need auditing all ai applications in use across a large enterprise to identify shadow it risks — its edge is provides comprehensive visibility into both approved and unauthorized ai tool usage. display.dev starts at $19/month; Proxon starts at On request.
Features compared
- Publish agent-generated HTML pages behind company authentication
- Secure access control for internal AI-generated dashboards
- Fast deployment of AI agent outputs as shareable internal tools
- Simple integration with existing AI agent and LLM pipelines
- Automated discovery and inventory of all AI tools across an organization, including shadow AI
- Ownership assignment and policy binding per AI system
- Real-time spend tracking and budget attribution for each AI tool
- Centralized compliance and governance dashboard for IT and security teams
Pros & cons
- Removes the need to build custom auth infrastructure for AI outputs
- Speeds up the deployment of agent-generated content to internal audiences
- Simple workflow that fits naturally into existing AI development pipelines
- Limited information available about advanced customization options
- May not suit teams needing highly complex multi-role permission systems
- Provides comprehensive visibility into both approved and unauthorized AI tool usage
- Directly links AI tools to owners, policies, and costs for clear accountability
- Designed specifically for enterprise security and IT governance workflows
- Pricing is not publicly available, making it difficult to budget without a sales conversation
- May require significant onboarding effort to fully integrate with existing IT infrastructure
The verdict
Choose display.dev if
you mainly need to sharing llm-generated reports with internal stakeholders securely. Its edge: removes the need to build custom auth infrastructure for ai outputs.
Choose Proxon if
you mainly need to auditing all ai applications in use across a large enterprise to identify shadow it risks. Its edge: provides comprehensive visibility into both approved and unauthorized ai tool usage.
Frequently asked questions
Is display.dev better than Proxon?
Neither is universally better. display.dev is stronger for sharing llm-generated reports with internal stakeholders securely, with an edge in removes the need to build custom auth infrastructure for ai outputs. Proxon is stronger for auditing all ai applications in use across a large enterprise to identify shadow it risks, with an edge in provides comprehensive visibility into both approved and unauthorized ai tool usage. Pick based on your main task.
Which is cheaper, display.dev or Proxon?
display.dev starts at $19/month and Proxon starts at On request. Free tier: display.dev — Free tier available with limited deployments; Proxon — No public free tier.
What is display.dev best for?
display.dev is best for sharing llm-generated reports with internal stakeholders securely, deploying ai agent html outputs as internal dashboards, protecting ai-generated data summaries behind company login.
What is Proxon best for?
Proxon is best for auditing all ai applications in use across a large enterprise to identify shadow it risks, enforcing ai usage policies and mapping each tool to a responsible owner, tracking and controlling ai-related software spend across business units.
Do display.dev and Proxon have free plans?
display.dev: Free tier available with limited deployments. Proxon: No public free tier. Check each tool's pricing page for current limits, as plans change.