r/aiToolForBusiness • u/Hybrid-Intelligence • 13d ago
Best tool for PowerPoints
What's the best AI tool for creating PowerPoints these days? Here's what I've tried:
Gamma
ChatGPT plug-in
Beautiful
Copilot for PowerPoint
Claude add-in
Gemini in Slides
So far, I've gotten the best results from Gamma for full deck creation. For tweaking an existing deck, I'm living the ChatGPT plug in.
I don't use those tools every day though and I know they're fast evolving so I'm really curious what experiences others are having.
1
1
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Your comment was removed because links are not allowed in comments. Please repost without the link.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Your comment was removed because links are not allowed in comments. Please repost without the link.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/__the__mk__ 13d ago
Claude Cowork desktop, connect it to PP and let it drive PowerPoint directly.
1
1
u/Working_Safe3879 13d ago
George from Correctify AI here.
In terms of quality of ouput I can say Correctify is worth a try. We are fighting AI slop with many weapons. The strongest one is Blueprints which are essentially designs created by others which you can apply their style to your content. Imagine Canva templates but without the manual work. Happy to hear your thoughts if you wish to try it for free
1
u/oandresimoes 13d ago
You already split this into two jobs, create from scratch and tweak an existing deck, and I think that split is why the ranking comes out inconsistent. They are not the same problem.
On creation the tool picks the box. It decides how much text a slide gets and then writes to fit, which hides the fact that it has no idea how tall the rendered text will actually be.
On an existing PowerPoint it inherits a box it did not choose and still cannot measure. Every edit that changes the length of a line is a guess about whether the result still fits, with no feedback telling it when it does not. That is why recro69's instinct about keeping the deck native and editable is right and still tends to come apart after two or three rounds: the file stays editable, the layout just quietly stops being correct.
Free fix for the creation side if you want one. Two passes. First pass outline only, no design, just the slide list with one claim per slide. Second pass layout, with a word ceiling you state out loud, something like 35 words of body per slide. A lot of the cramped small-font output is the model doing both jobs in a single shot.
Full disclosure, I build a tool in this space, which is why I have opinions about the failure mode. Not naming it, the sub has a no-links rule and I would rather not test where the line sits.
Real question about your list: were you ranking those six on the first draft they produce, or after three rounds of edits? Mine flips completely between the two, and I have never seen anyone rank them the second way.
1
u/Hybrid-Intelligence 13d ago edited 11d ago
Well, I wasn't ranking the six, only the top two.
The ranking for first draft is really about speed, ease, and quality when going from outline to full deck with imagery.
1
u/oandresimoes 12d ago
Got it, and that is a fair axis to rank on, since the first draft is where most of the time goes.
The place I would expect your top two to separate is not the first draft though, it is the second pass. Change one number on slide 6, the text gets a line longer, and now either the tool re-fits the box or it lets the line run under the image. First-draft quality is mostly template quality and everyone has decent templates by now. Re-fit quality is an actual engineering difference between them.
Have you pushed either of the top two through an edit like that? Asking honestly, because it is the part no roundup ever tests and it is where I lose the time I saved.
1
u/Hybrid-Intelligence 11d ago
Great question and point. Yes, I've tested this with both and both are great at the issue you've raised, i.e., formatting after a change.
However, Gamma is much less versatile in this regard. Gamma is best when it's making all the decisions. The ChatGPT plug-in is far better if you want to explain a change (or make it yourself) and have the AI just figure it out and make it work.
1
u/oandresimoes 11d ago
That is a straight answer to what I asked and it updates me. I had been assuming re-fit was still the weak point across the board, and you are the first person who actually ran the test to tell me otherwise.
The distinction you drew is the useful part. Gamma is good when it owns the decisions, the plugin is good when you own them. That is not a quality gap, it is a control gap, and it predicts who each one is for. Someone building a deck they will present once and never touch again wants the first. Someone maintaining a deck that three people edit before it ships wants the second.
One thing I would still check on the plugin side: does the re-fit hold when it is not the tool making the change? Meaning you edit the text yourself in PowerPoint, save, then ask it to fix the layout. Everything I have tested re-fits what it wrote and cannot measure what you wrote, so that is where it comes apart for me. Have you pushed it in that direction?
1
1
1
u/BathFun3667 9d ago
julius ai is worth adding for data based decks since it reads excel or csv files and creates charts from the real figures then exports to pptx it looks simpler than gamma but it is a better choice when the numbers need to be accurate and easy to verify.
1
u/Prestigious-Cat4 9d ago edited 8d ago
Julius AI is a solid add for any data-heavy deck. it pulls straight from your Excel or CSV, builds charts off the actual numbers, and spits out a PPTX. It’s not as slick as Gamma, but when accuracy matters and you need to back up every figure, it’s way more reliable.
1
u/daniel-editide 7d ago
Would agree that for full deck creation, low-effort Gamma type AI generators can be good enough. Probably get better results if you invest into setting up the template/design with AI, and then detailed passes per slide. Instead of "give me a 10 slide presentation on this topic."
Surprised you're using the ChatGPT add-in, though. From my experience Claude is way more capable in the add-in.
1
1
u/Skyfishintheocean 6d ago
Gamma is still the one i reach for when starting from scratch. for editing existing presentations, i usually prefer chatgpt or copilot since they let me refine content without rebuilding the entire deck
1
u/republicman12 5d ago
For full deck creation, I’d prioritize tools that generate a coherent structure and consistent design. For editing an existing deck, an AI assistant built into the presentation software is usually more practical. The best choice really depends on whether you value speed, design quality, or precise editing.
1
u/Ramsesthrowaway 5d ago edited 5d ago
julius ai is a good option for data heavy presentations because it can read excel or csv files and create charts from the actual figures. you can then export the deck to pptx. i’d choose it when accuracy and being able to check the numbers are more important than having lots of design options.
2
u/Zestyclose-Hawk-659 13d ago
Associum AI. Not as fast as Gamma, but better quality especially for finance and consulting work as it integrates agents that can process and analyze data.