Rating methodology
Every deck maker gets the same three deck tasks. We score what comes out – design, structure, accuracy, export – plus ease of editing and privacy terms: six criteria, 0 to 5 points each, fixed weights. For other categories, only applicable criteria are scored.
The test brief
The same inputs for every deck maker, so scores can be compared across deck tools:
- Prompt to deck. Paste the 120-word brief unchanged and ask for the 10-slide sales deck it describes.
- Document to deck. Upload the 4-page report (one table, two charts) and ask for an 8-slide summary; every figure is checked against expected-facts.json.
- Brand template and export. Apply the template (Georgia/Verdana, #1F4E79), export to PPTX and open it in PowerPoint and Google Slides: editable text, native charts, fonts kept, speaker notes present.
The actual files – brief, source report, template, expected facts, checksums – and the scoring anchors are published on Deck benchmark v1. Tools that don’t make decks are not scored on the deck criteria.
Each verified deck-maker listing shows screenshots of the generated deck and of the exported file opened in PowerPoint, so you can judge the output yourself.
The six criteria
| Criterion | Weight | Key question |
|---|---|---|
| Slide design | 20% | Do the generated slides look professional and consistent – layout, hierarchy, images – without manual fixing? |
| Structure & storytelling | 15% | Does the deck follow the brief with a clear narrative, sensible slide order and usable speaker notes? |
| Factual accuracy | 15% | Are facts and figures from the brief and source document reproduced correctly – no invented numbers, quotes or sources? |
| Export fidelity | 20% | Does the PPTX / Google Slides export stay editable: real text boxes, native charts, master slides, fonts, speaker notes? |
| Ease of editing | 10% | How quickly does a new user get to a usable deck, and how easy are revisions, brand templates and team edits? |
| Privacy & business terms | 20% | DPA, server location, sub-processors, training on uploads, admin/SSO, invoices with VAT – documented and acceptable? |
| Total | 100% |
Design and export fidelity carry the most weight, because they decide whether you can use the deck at all. Privacy weighs as much: decks are full of client data, financials and unreleased plans.
The formula
Each criterion is rated from 0 to 5, converted to its weighted share, and summed:
Score = Σ ( criterion / 5 × weight ) / Σ weights used × 100If a criterion can't be assessed, it doesn't count as zero; it drops out of the calculation. Otherwise missing information would look like a flaw. Every verified listing shows which criteria were assessed.
| Score | Band |
|---|---|
| 95 | Excellent |
| 78 | Solid |
| 62 | Usable with caveats |
| 45 | Weak |
| 20 | Not recommended |
The GDPR check
Eight questions, each with an answer, a source link, and a check date:
| 1 | Data processing agreement (DPA) available |
|---|---|
| 2 | Server location disclosed |
| 3 | Sub-processors listed publicly |
| 4 | Training on customer data: default and opt-out, by plan |
| 5 | EU representative appointed (Art. 27 GDPR) |
| 6 | Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) for transfers outside the EU |
| 7 | Deletion periods documented |
| 8 | Independent certification (ISO 27001, SOC 2) |
This check also exists without a rating: at the Documents reviewed level we read the vendor's documents and publish the eight answers with source and date, without having used the tool. No score comes out of that, because ease of use and support can't be read off a page. Details under How we review.
AI-assisted research. Since October 2026, some of these document reviews are done with an AI assistant: it fetches the vendor's pages and records every answer with the source it came from; anything it couldn't read stays "unclear". Those listings are explicitly labeled as such on their page. A rating never comes out of this process: that requires a human to actually use the tool.
The check records what a vendor publicly commits to at the time of review. It is not a certification, not an audit, and not legal advice. Whether a use is permitted at your company depends on your data and your purpose, and has to be assessed on your end.
Validity and re-review
A review is valid for 180 days. After that it comes due automatically, and the listing visibly shows "Re-review due" until we've done it. In between we don't monitor vendors' pricing pages automatically – every price carries the date we checked it. If you notice a change, report it and we re-check early.