📐 Genspark AI vs. Gamma: Who builds it better?

Welcome to The Wireframe – your no-BS-breakdown of how AI tools actually perform when put to work.

Today’s matchup: Gamma vs. Genspark AI

We usually break down websites based on UX, copy, and design—but this week, we went hands-on.

Instead of just looking at the landing page claims, we ran both Gamma.app and Genspark.ai through a practical test: turning an email marketing guide into a shareable presentation.

Spoiler: these two tools serve different needs and depending on the type of presentation you're building, one clearly pulls ahead.

Let’s break it down.

Gamma — Your AI design partner for polished decks, docs, and landing pages.

✅ Instant clarity & sharp messaging
“Bring your ideas to life.” Gamma’s pitch is clean, tight, and benefit-focused. No decoding needed and speaks to their target audience: people who want extra design support on their presentations, fast.

✅ Live publishing built-in
Docs created in Gamma can be published as websites instantly. That’s a huge plus if you want a quick microsite, a pitch deck link, or a shareable resource without touching Webflow.

✅ Card-based UX that makes sense
Editing in Gamma feels natural, like Notion and Canva teamed up. No clunky toolbars, just easy-to-drag blocks and AI-powered layout suggestions.

✅ Designed for actual humans
The entire experience—from onboarding to export—is friendly. Bonus: the free version gives you full design functionality and publishing without an over the top watermark being slapped on the documents.

⚠️ Scope is tight (by design)
Gamma excels at docs, decks, and visual storytelling. But don’t expect heavy customization, app logic, or anything beyond basic layouts.

⚠️ AI-generated visuals still need polish
Built-in image generation is fine for rough drafts, but not always client-ready. You're better off uploading your own visuals if quality matters.

Plus, Monthly Live Office Hours and Access to the Private Growth Playbook Library.

Already a paying subscriber? Sign In.