I’ve been getting a lot of questions about AI design tools lately. “Traci, can’t I just use Gamma to create my sales deck?” or “Why would I pay for presentation design when AI can do it in seconds?”

Fair enough questions. So I decided to do a test.

I took a real client brief, put it through Gamma (the AI presentation tool that’s been getting a lot of buzz), and compared it to what I’d create in PowerPoint to give you an honest comparison so you can make the right choice for your business.

Here’s what I learned…

The test: Real client brief, two approaches

I used actual content from a client project. Same information, same objectives, two different approaches.

One through Gamma’s AI. One through my usual design process.

Gamma created slides in seconds which was really impressive.

My process took considerably longer but that time wasn’t spent making things look pretty.

It was spent on decisions that actually affect whether your presentation works or not.

What happens before I even open PowerPoint

This is the bit most people don’t see, and it’s where a lot of AI tools (or users prompts) fall short.

Before I create a single slide, I’m asking questions:

What’s the learning objective?
Is this presentation meant to teach something new, reinforce existing knowledge, or shift someone’s thinking?

Who’s the audience?
Internal stakeholders think differently to prospective clients. Senior leadership needs different content density than workshop participants.

What’s the goal?
Are we selling, teaching, informing, or inspiring action? Because that changes everything about how information flows through the deck.

What happens after this presentation?
Will they reference it later? Will it live on someone’s desktop for six months? Does it need to work without you presenting it?

Gamma asks you to type in what you want. Then it generates slides based on a series of templates programmed into it. That’s not design strategy. That’s decoration.

The future-proofing you don’t realise you need

When I design a PowerPoint, I’m not just creating the slides you’ve briefed me on. I’m building assets.

For instance, I create a lot of custom graphics for your individual content and brand. They’re not trapped in one slide.

You can use them in your workbook. Your proposal documents. Your website if you want.

I design assets as modular, reusable pieces. So when you’re putting together a follow-up document or a case study six months from now, you’ve already got a suite of professionally designed assets that match your brand.

Gamma creates images that live in Gamma. You can’t easily extract individual elements. You’d need to screenshot and crop, which isn’t ideal and the images are then low-quality.

I’ve had clients come back a year after a presentation project saying, “Remember that timeline graphic you made? We’ve used it in about 15 different documents since.” That’s what I mean by future-proofing.

Master templates: The consistency that makes you look professional

Here’s something you probably won’t think about until it’s too late: what happens when you need to add slides?

Let’s say you deliver your presentation, and someone asks for additional information. Or you need to update the deck for a different prospect. Or you want to add a new section.

With my PowerPoint designs, I create master templates. That means you can add new slides months later, and they’ll automatically match the style. Same layouts, same formatting, same professional look.

You don’t need to remember which font size you used or how much space goes between elements. It’s all built into the template structure.

Gamma doesn’t give you that. You’re editing within their system, using their structure. If you export to PowerPoint (more on that nightmare in a minute), you lose the ability to maintain consistency easily.

My Gamma test: The good, the bad, and the export hell

Let’s talk about what actually happened when I tested Gamma.

The impressive bit:

I put in my client’s content. Within seconds, Gamma created slides with a concept that was very similar to mine. A pyramid structure (though laid on its side). I was impressed by that.

You can add your own colours, fonts, and one logo. The interface is intuitive. For generating ideas quickly, it’s actually quite useful.

One feature I particularly liked: you can quickly swap between different diagram styles using a dropdown menu.

Click, preview, click again if it doesn’t work. It’s really fast for testing whether a particular visual concept suits your content.

Instead of spending twenty minutes building a diagram only to realise it doesn’t work, you can cycle through options in seconds and see what fits. For rapid concept exploration, that’s really handy.

The limitations:

The free version is limited. Want to add extra logos, headers, or footers? That’s the Pro (paid) version.

I could edit text and outline colour in Gamma, but I couldn’t properly style elements. For instance, I wanted to fill in blocks on the diagram. Couldn’t do it.

You can swap between pre-formatted styles in their library, but you’re still choosing from their options, not creating your own.

The export disaster:

Actually, calling it a complete disaster isn’t quite fair. Let me be more accurate.

Exporting to PowerPoint did a reasonable job overall. The slides looked pretty similar to how they appeared in Gamma. You can edit text and change the colour of shapes. For basic presentations, that might be enough.

But it’s also where the limitations show up.

The Gamma logo appeared on the master slide (removable, but still an extra step).

More significantly, there are no master templates created.

Remember what I said earlier about being able to add slides months later and maintain consistency? You don’t get that.

You’d need to manually match formatting every time you add something new.

The diagram editing is where it really falls short. In Gamma, I had limited control over styling.

In PowerPoint after export, I had even less. I could change the text, but I couldn’t properly restructure or customise the diagram as it wasn’t editable.

If you wanted to adapt that diagram for a different use case – for example, adding an extra section or changing the layout completely – you’d be stuck. You can’t break it apart and rebuild it. You’re working with what Gamma gave you.

I didn’t fully test animations in this version, but I’m really curious about how those would export.

Based on how the diagrams exported, I’m not optimistic about complex animation sequences surviving the transition.

The subscription issue

Gamma requires another subscription if you want full features. That’s not inherently bad, but it’s worth considering.

With PowerPoint, you probably already have it (most businesses do). The files are yours. You can open them in five years. You can share them with anyone without worrying about access permissions or subscription levels.

With Gamma, you’re tied to their platform. If you cancel your subscription, what happens to your presentations? If you want to share with someone who doesn’t have Gamma, you’re exporting with all the limitations I mentioned earlier.

That’s not just about money. It’s about control over your business assets.

Where AI tools like Gamma work well

I don’t want to be completely negative here. AI tools have their place.

Gamma is brilliant for:

Concept development:
Need to visualise ideas quickly? Gamma’s great for that. Use it to explore different approaches before you commit to full design.

Internal drafts:
Quick team presentations where polish doesn’t matter? Go for it.

Rapid iteration:
Testing different content structures? Gamma lets you reorganise fast.

I’ll probably use it myself for those purposes.

But the difference is that I know what I’m looking at. I can spot where the design falls short and what would need fixing. I understand learning design principles and visual hierarchy.

If you’re using Gamma to create client-facing materials or important sales presentations or workshops without that background knowledge? You’re making design decisions without realising you’re making them.

What you’re actually paying a designer for

When you hire a graphic designer to create a PowerPoint, you’re not paying for someone to make slides look pretty.

You’re paying a designer for:

• Strategic thinking about how information flows
• Understanding of learning psychology and visual hierarchy
• Bespoke assets you can use beyond the presentation
• Master templates that maintain consistency
• Design that works across different contexts and audiences
• Futureproofing so your materials stay useful

You’re also paying for the stuff I’ve learned by doing this for years.

Like knowing that corporate audiences hate slides with too much text, but they want handouts with detail.

Or that workshop materials need different pacing than sales decks.

Or which animation sequence actually helps comprehension versus which ones just look flashy.

AI can’t replicate that. Not yet, anyway.

My honest recommendation

If you’re an established service business pitching for serious contracts or delivering premium training, Gamma isn’t your solution.

Use it for ideas, absolutely. Use it to mock up concepts quickly. But when it comes to client-facing materials that represent your business and justify your pricing?

You need someone who understands not just how to make things look professional, but why certain design decisions work and others don’t.

The difference isn’t just aesthetic. It’s strategic.

And that difference is what separates businesses that look established from businesses that look like they’re trying to look established.

There’s a reason your competitors are investing in professional design. It’s not vanity. It’s because when you’re pitching against other businesses with similar expertise and similar pricing, the presentation quality becomes the deciding factor.

Your expertise deserves better than a template.

Even a really fast, clever AI template.

A quick reality check

I should be honest here. I only tested one page, and I did it fairly quickly. Could I have got a better result from Gamma if I’d spent more time learning the platform and exploring all its features? Probably.

But that’s exactly the point.

Where are you going to spend your time and energy?

Learning the ins and outs of another tool, figuring out its workarounds and limitations, and still ending up with assets that might not export properly or work long-term? Or investing that time in getting professional design that’s built to last and adapt as your business grows?

It’s about weighing up what you’re actually getting for the effort you’re putting in.

Don’t get me wrong…AI is bloody amazing. I use it myself to speed up workflows, generate concepts, and create unique imagery for clients. It’s transformed parts of my process. But I know how to use it strategically. I know what it’s good for and where it falls short. I know when to use AI-generated elements and when to design from scratch.

To get the most out of Gamma, you’d need to explore far more than just the end result. You’d need to understand its ecosystem, how to work within its limitations, which features are worth the learning curve, and how to futureproof what you create. That’s not a criticism of Gamma – it’s just the reality of any design tool.

The question is: is that where you want to be spending your time as a business owner or paying your employees or colleagues to do?