Cloakly has been selling this longer than we have, has more features than we do, and costs three times as much for a lifetime licence. All three of those are true at once, which is why a straight “we are better” would be worth nothing to you.
We make one of the two, so weigh this accordingly. Every figure below was read from their own pricing page on 5 September 2026. We have not tested their software and nothing here claims anything about how well it works.
What it costs, on both sides
| Cloakly | Hushglass | |
|---|---|---|
| Lifetime | $129 | $39 |
| Yearly | $39 | $19 |
| Monthly | $5 | — |
| Free tier | One app, hidden manually | One window, no expiry |
| Trial | 3 days, 14 on lifetime | Free tier instead |
| Taskbar and Alt-Tab hiding | Yes | No, but a minimised window’s preview shows only its icon |
| Preview of the viewer’s side | Yes | No |
| Multi-monitor | A paid feature | On every tier, including Free |
Read the yearly row against the lifetime row. Cloakly’s annual plan costs $39 a year. Our lifetime licence costs $39 once. What they charge every twelve months, we charge one time — and their lifetime is $129, which is 3.3 times ours.
That is the sharpest number in this comparison and we would rather state it plainly than dress it up. It is also not automatically the deciding one, for reasons in the next section.
Where Cloakly is genuinely ahead
Their feature list is longer than ours, and not with filler.
Taskbar and Alt-Tab hiding is the one that could actually decide this. We do not remove a window from either — a protected window stays in your taskbar and your switcher, under its own title. What we change is its preview: since version 1.0.5, a minimised protected window shows its app icon in Alt-Tab, Task View and the taskbar preview instead of its content. One that is open on your screen still shows what is in it. If what gives you away is the window being listed at all, or its live thumbnail while it is open, they have an answer today and we do not.
Check that it is really your case first, because it is narrower than it sounds. The switcher only exposes anything if you actually open it while sharing. If you move between windows by clicking them, or by the protect hotkey, or you simply do not Alt-Tab mid-call, nothing about the taskbar reaches your viewers and this feature buys you nothing. The people it genuinely matters to are the ones who Alt-Tab reflexively while presenting — which is a habit, and you know whether it is yours.
If it is, they have the answer today and we do not, and $129 is what it costs. If it is not, the same job is $39 here, on two computers instead of one, with a free tier to check it on first.
We would rather say what the gap means than dress it up: it is real, and the app carries a feedback button — report a problem or suggest something — specifically so the order we build things in comes from the people using it rather than from us guessing. If this is the feature standing between you and us, tell us and it moves up.
Their other extras, weighed honestly rather than listed.
- A picture-in-picture preview of what your audience sees. Worth knowing it exists — but be honest about how you would use it. It answers is this working once, and after that you stop looking. You can answer the same question without it by glancing at the meeting’s own view of your shared screen, which is the habit we would recommend whichever tool you buy.
- Automatic cloaking rules set up ahead of a call. Ours is the zero-config version of the same idea and it needs nothing configured; theirs is more controllable. That is a preference, not a gap.
- Transparency modes and always-on-top pinning, which are a different job — keeping notes visible to you rather than hiding things from viewers.
They offer trials with a defined end: three days on monthly and yearly, fourteen on lifetime, with a card taken up front. Whether that beats a free tier that never expires depends on you — a trial shows you everything for a fortnight, a free tier shows you one window forever without a card or a date to remember.
Where we think we are ahead
Price, and specifically its shape. $39 once, against $129 once or $39 every year.
A free tier with no countdown. One window, protected for as long as you like, no account, no card, no date to remember. Theirs is one app hidden manually on the free plan, which is a comparable idea — but our whole position is that if a single chat window is the private thing, you should never have to pay us. Most people’s answer is one window.
Two computers on one licence. A work machine and a personal one, one purchase.
Multi-monitor on every tier, including Free. It is a paid feature on their list; on ours the protection is per-monitor-DPI aware by construction, so a second screen is not something you buy.
Automatic protection of new windows on Pro. Protect any window and every new window from that same application is picked up within about a second — chat pop-outs, dialogs, new documents — with no rules to write beforehand. Their auto-cloak rules are the configured version of the same idea; ours is zero-config and theirs is more controllable. Neither is obviously better and it depends whether you like setting rules.
Viewers see a labelled cover rather than a gap. An opaque screen reading Private content protected. They can tell something is deliberately private instead of wondering what happened, and it makes Hushglass a poor tool for deceiving anyone. That is deliberate. If you would rather viewers saw nothing at all, that is a real preference and it points away from us.
Neither of us has a technical moat, and you should know that
There is one Windows capability that does this properly: a flag, available since Windows 10 version 2004, that tells Windows to leave a chosen window out of anything capturing the screen. Cloakly’s own site describes a Rust and Windows API stack, which points at the same call ours makes. The free tools reach it a different way, by injecting into the target process, and that difference is real — but between two commercial Windows apps, the underlying capability is the same one.
So do not choose on mechanism claims. Nobody here has invented anything. Choose on price, on which feature list matches what you actually do, and on which developer you would rather trust.
What we would rather you knew before paying us
- Our installer is not code-signed yet. Your browser will probably warn you about the download. We publish the SHA-256 and the exact byte count on the download page so you can verify the file, and the whole mechanism is explained here. If you would rather not click through a warning at all, the same app is on the Microsoft Store, free. A Store install is signed by Microsoft, so neither your browser nor Windows warns you on the way in. A certificate for the installer is planned.
- No taskbar or Alt-Tab hiding, and no preview of the viewer’s side. Two things they have and we do not. What we do cover there: a minimised protected window shows only its app icon in Alt-Tab, Task View and the taskbar preview.
- Four languages so far. The app is in English, German, Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese since version 1.0.6, and follows your Windows language; any other language still gets the English.
- No trial, because there is a free tier instead. If one window is all you need, do not pay us.
- Protection requires sharing your entire screen. Share the protected app as a single window and it will be visible. This is true of both products.
The short version
If you need the window gone from the taskbar and Alt-Tab as well as from the share, Cloakly has that today and we do not: we keep it listed, and only a minimised one is reduced to its icon. That is the one honest reason to pay $129 instead of $39.
If what you need is a window kept off the share, and $39 once against $39 a year is a difference you care about, we cost a third of their lifetime and you can find out for nothing first.
Start on the free tier. One window, no card, no expiry. If that is the whole job, keep it and pay neither of us.
Frequently asked questions
Is Cloakly's lifetime price really more than three times Hushglass's?
Yes, and the sharper comparison is the yearly one. Cloakly's annual plan is $39 a year; Hushglass's lifetime licence is $39 once. So what they charge every year, we charge one time. Their lifetime is $129 against our $39. Those are the list prices on both sites as of 5 September 2026, and prices change, so check before you decide anything on ours.
What does Cloakly have that Hushglass does not?
One thing that could genuinely decide it: hiding the window from the taskbar and Alt-Tab, which we do not do: a protected window stays listed in both, and only a minimised one has its preview swapped for its icon. They also list auto-cloak rules, transparency modes and a preview of the viewer's side. We would weigh those lower — our auto-protect needs no rules configured, and the preview answers "is this working" once, which you can check yourself in the meeting's own shared view. Multi-monitor is on their paid feature list and works on every tier of ours, including Free.
Do Cloakly and Hushglass use the same underlying method?
Both build on the same Windows capability — a flag that tells Windows to leave a chosen window out of screen capture, available from Windows 10 version 2004. Their site describes a Rust and Windows API stack, which points at the same call. There is one API for this on Windows, so nobody in this category has a technical moat, and you should choose on price, trust and fit rather than on a mechanism claim.
Should I take the trial or start on a free tier?
They suit different people. A trial lets you test every feature and then decide, with a card taken up front and a date to remember. A free tier lets you use one window forever with no card and no date, but you never see the paid features until you buy. If you know you need several windows covered, a trial answers your question faster. If you suspect one window is the whole job, the free tier answers it for nothing.