Gamma vs Tome

If you searched "Gamma vs Tome" expecting a head-to-head of two live tools, the honest answer is that this is no longer a fair fight, because only one side is still standing. Tome's consumer AI presentation app shut down its presentation product on April 30, 2025. Any deck you had not exported by then was permanently deleted; there was no recovery window and no data migration offered to users.

Gamma, by contrast, is still very much a going concern in 2026: an active product with a free tier, three paid tiers (Plus, Pro, Ultra), a Generate API, and Zapier/Make integrations. So the practical question isn't really "which should I pick," it's "what do I use now instead of Tome," and whether Gamma is the closest match to what you liked about Tome in the first place.

This page covers three things: what the Tome vs Gamma comparison actually meant while Tome was alive, why Tome went away, how Gamma works today, and where a content-first tool like Eazy fits for people who specifically miss Tome's write-first, story-driven workflow rather than Gamma's prompt-and-generate one.

Tome launched as an AI-native, narrative-first presentation tool: you wrote in a flowing document, and Tome turned that writing into a polished deck, leaning hard into storytelling rather than slide-by-slide construction. It grew fast, reportedly reaching around 20 million users at its peak, which is part of why people still search for it years later.

The business behind it did not hold up. Tome had raised $81.6 million in funding but was generating under $4 million in annual revenue, and the company publicly said it had "failed to find a sustainable path" for consumer AI presentations. In October 2024 it began moving away from presentations and cut a large part of its team; in March 2025 it confirmed the presentation product, Tome Slides, would sunset; and on April 30, 2025, that product shut down for good.

Anyone who had not exported their decks lost them permanently, since all user data was deleted when the shutdown took effect. The team went on to build Lightfield, an AI-native CRM aimed at early-stage sales teams, and AngelList separately acquired the Tome brand name for an unrelated document-summarization use. None of that is a presentation product, which is the reason "Gamma vs Tome" now needs the asterisk this page is giving it.

Functionally, Gamma and Tome sat in the same category: both promised that you could describe what you wanted, get an AI-generated draft, and edit from there rather than starting from a blank canvas. Where they differed was emphasis. Tome pushed hardest on story: a deck was closer to a narrative you scrolled through, with AI handling pacing and imagery in service of that story. Gamma treats a "gamma" as a more general-purpose, flexible unit of content that can render as a deck, a document, or a scrollable web page, generated from a prompt and then reshaped card by card.

Gamma is also easier to actually adopt if what you liked about Tome was low-friction AI drafting: it has a genuine free plan (400 signup credits, capped features, "Made with Gamma" branding until you upgrade), paid tiers from roughly $8 a month for Plus up to Pro and Ultra for heavier or team use, an Import & Transform feature that restructures an uploaded PDF, Word file, PowerPoint, or pasted link into a gamma, and a Generate API for programmatic use. None of that existed in Tome's final form, and none of it is coming back through Tome, since the presentation product itself no longer exists to compare against.

The honest takeaway: if you want a currently maintained, prompt-to-deck AI generator with a free way in, Gamma is the live tool that most resembles the category Tome used to compete in. It is not a clone of Tome's exact narrative style, but it is the closest thing still standing that solves a similar problem.

1. If what you valued in Tome was speed and low commitment (describe a topic, get a draft deck, edit from there), Gamma is the direct, currently available replacement, and its free tier means you can try it without paying anything up front.

2. If you had existing content, an old outline, a PDF, or a PowerPoint you wanted a tool to absorb and restructure rather than retype, Gamma's Import & Transform covers that same job Tome used to do informally through its editor.

3. If what you actually miss is Tome's write-first feel, where the writing came first and the deck followed, rather than a prompt-and-generate loop, that is a different workflow than Gamma's, and it is the specific gap Eazy is built to fill: you write in a real content-first editor (headings, bullets, toggle lists, slide dividers, notes), or bring in a PDF, Word doc, PowerPoint, Excel/CSV, or link, and design happens after your content is right, not instead of it.

4. Either way, export your work. The single biggest lesson from Tome's shutdown is that anything left inside a tool with no local backup can disappear with the company. Both Gamma and Eazy export to PDF and PPTX, so whichever you choose, keep a copy outside the app.

Eazy starts from a similar instinct to what made Tome appealing in the first place: your content, written or dropped in, is the real starting point, not a prompt you have to get exactly right. You write directly in a block editor with real headings, bullet lists, toggle lists, slide dividers, and notes, or you bring what you already have (a PDF, Word document, PowerPoint file, Excel or CSV sheet, or a web link) and Eazy reads it into editable content, keeping the document itself as the source of truth throughout.

When you are ready to design, every slide is built for you and on-brand by default, and applying a theme restyles the whole deck in one click rather than making you rework individual layouts. Refining afterward means talking to Eazy in plain language, since it has the context of your whole document, and changing one line only rebuilds the one slide that line affects, leaving the rest of a deck you already like untouched. A finished deck exports to PDF and PPTX.

On the model side, Eazy does not lock into a single vendor: it evaluates frontier models from labs like Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI, plus a dedicated image model, through a provider-flexible engine, and routes per task rather than asking you to pick. It is currently free during early access, with credits included and no watermark on your exports, which is a reasonable way to see whether the write-first feel you liked in Tome carries over.