I ran Beautiful.ai and Gamma side by side for a two-week sprint across three real client decks—each with different types of requirements. One was data-heavy with charts and KPIs, one was internal team training, and one was more visual and verbal-centered, like an investor pitch. These two AI presentation builders couldn’t have approached those builds more differently.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Feature
Beautiful.ai
Gamma
Template Styling Control
Locked components adjusting automatically
Editable in blocks and freeform cards
Effort to Add Custom Logic (e.g., conditional visuals)
Little to no control
Markdown and AI helpers enable flexibility
Collaboration Feel
Classic single-user editor experience
Feels like Notion with chat and inline changes
Best Strength
Consistent polish under time pressure
Modular creativity + fast ideation
Right away, Beautiful.ai feels rigid but elegant. When you drop content into a slide structure—a chart, a checklist, a photo block—everything aligns perfectly. It’s like working on rails. Gamma, on the other hand, builds like a document and then lets you convert it into a slideshow structure. You don’t get fine-grain layout control early on, but Gamma lets you go off-script as you need to. I was able to drop in code blocks, embed a Figma file, and inject interactive polls—none of which Beautiful.ai supports natively.
So if raw polish is the goal: go Beautiful. If structural flexibility and more Notion-like workflows matter, Gamma is more breathable and less template-driven.
Ultimately, their core behaviors shape completely different design experiences.
Which Delivers Faster First Drafts
Out of the box, Beautiful.ai gives a cleaner first draft faster in most cases. I tried typing a paragraph about market size into both tools after giving them the same prompt. Beautiful.ai regenerated the slide with right-aligned visuals and pulled in smart icons. Gamma spat out something closer to a blog paragraph, with light header styling and no visual hierarchy unless manually selected.
This split held up across five quick builds. Here’s a timing table to illustrate:
Build Scenario
Time to First Usable Draft in Beautiful.ai
Time in Gamma
Quarterly metrics deck
Under 10 minutes
Roughly 15 to 20 minutes
Sales enablement slides
Less than 5 minutes
10+ minutes with back-and-forth formatting
Startup pitch (Seed stage)
Rough draft in 7 minutes
Needed manual ordering & restyling
—
However, when I looked back the next day and tried tweaking details—like changing the focus of a slide, reordering content, shifting visuals—Gamma made those changes feel… lighter. It didn’t break formatting with every word edit. Beautiful.ai kept making formatting assumptions that forced me to re-tweak layout blocks entirely, especially if I reworded sections or replaced bullet lists with numbers.
The bottom line is: if you just need polished slides instantly, Beautiful.ai is snappier. But if you’re iterating with teammates or refining content over time, Gamma scales better.
How Each Tool Handles Data and Charts
This was painful. Beautiful.ai treats charts more like decorative elements. You choose a chart type (bar, pie, line), paste your values, and it adjusts styling automatically. That part is great… until you need dual-axis graphs, mixed-series labels, or drill-down interactions. There’s almost no depth. I tried inserting a waterfall chart and got a stacked bar instead, and couldn’t control the data point labels.
Gamma was slightly more open but still felt beta. When I pasted a CSV of revenue tracking over six months, it misaligned the columns first. It eventually rendered it into a basic bar chart, but formatting options were limited. No hover-over labels, no axis customization, just change the color scheme or size.
Here’s a real bug I logged in both:
Gamma: graph widgets sometimes get stuck in loading mode if you switch chart types too quick
Beautiful.ai: switching a series with even totals into a pie chart will slice it visually wrong (percentages don’t get calculated correctly unless you retype them as fractions)
If high-fidelity dashboards or financial storytelling is your core workflow, you’ll hit the limits of both. Neither is meant to replace Excel or Looker integration. But for simple trend visuals or snapshot KPIs, Beautiful.ai compresses the workflow better visually.
To summarize, both tools struggle with real data modeling—but Beautiful.ai presents cleaner results faster if depth isn’t required.
Collaboration and Real-Time Edits
This is where Gamma seriously outshines. It behaves like Notion and Google Docs had a slide baby. Everyone can type inline. You can even chat next to a block and leave comments. We tested this with a remote marketing team. Three people editing a product playbook at once wasn’t chaotic—it was intuitive. One person adjusted phrasing, another added screenshots, the third adapted the outline. Every change synced instantly.
With Beautiful.ai, you have to share and wait. Comments only show when clicked. No true inline co-authoring. If two of us tried to edit a slide at the same time, it shot up a warning and stopped one of us. That’s reasonable for brand safety, but frustrating under time pressure.
Another advantage with Gamma: versioning. Every edit session gets auto-saved and you can click a button to roll back. I accidentally deleted half a block during a late-night sprint, but CTRL+Z wasn’t working because focus had left the block. I just navigated to version history and clicked revert. Life saver.
In summary, if you’re building decks with a fully async or distributed team, Gamma avoids all the bottlenecks.
Which One Works Better for Visual Storytelling
The deck that caused the biggest divergence between the two platforms was a story-driven pitch deck. It started with a problem-opportunity framing, moved into product validation, wrapped with testimonials. Gamma handled this flow more organically, almost like assembling a doc and deciding later what becomes visual emphasis.
The developer testimonials felt alive in Gamma—like mini blog snippets within slides. I could embed a quote with formatting, drop a product screenshot, resize at will, and transition everything fluidly. With Beautiful.ai, slides demanded stricter photo-text rules. Slide types like “Testimonial” or “Quote with callout” couldn’t be adapted if I wanted to show a profile + quote + star rating.
I also dropped in a Loom demo: only Gamma supported autoplay and sizing inside the deck without breaking layout. Beautiful.ai forced an iframe that opened separately and broke presentation fluidity.
However, when I exported both decks to PDF for investors, the Beautiful.ai result looked like an agency-designed deliverable. Gamma’s was functional but slightly raw, with inconsistent image margining and awkward line breaks on autoflow paragraphs.
To wrap up, Gamma is better for narrative building—Beautiful.ai nails it when you need everything glossy at a glance.
Real Use Cases Where Each Shines
I’ve used both platforms across different client contexts, and they each have moments where they click hard. Here’s where each felt like the obvious winner:
Beautiful.ai: Investor pitches with minimal time, internal reports for execs, client deliverables where layout and brand polish are more important than content flexibility
Gamma: Learning decks with embedded callouts, collaborative team wikis, customer onboarding flows, MVP product launches with evolving messaging
One odd win for Beautiful.ai: I built a press release deck summary in under five minutes with perfect formatting. Gamma kept overcomplicating headings and paragraph groupings. But for a new SaaS onboarding flow walkthrough, Gamma let me clone and remix workflows like I was populating a Notion library. Updating one part of the deck rippled through others realistically.
At the end of the day, tool choice really depends on whether you treat a deck as final output or creative tool-in-progress.
Final Thoughts and Which One You Should Choose
After building fifteen decks between Gamma and Beautiful.ai, the feeling I kept returning to was this: Gamma is like drafting in Google Docs, with the ability to “slide-ify” later; Beautiful.ai is like working inside Canva, but with some autopilot creativity thrown in. Neither replaces a designer entirely. But both get you to a decent first version without panic.
I now use Beautiful.ai when I know the bones of what I want and just need it to look good fast. I reach for Gamma when I’m brainstorming, co-developing, or need structure to evolve with my thinking. If I had to give one to a junior marketer building client decks for multiple verticals tomorrow, I’d go with Beautiful.ai. If it were a founder sharing story-driven updates with an async team? Gamma, easy.
At the end of the day, it’s less about “which one is better”—and more about when you need structured elegance or structured editing.
