presentation software limitations

👀 Turn any prompt into captivating visuals in seconds with our AI-powered visual tool ✨ Try Piktochart AI!

• Piktochart Visual
• Video Editor
• Infographic Maker
• Banner Maker
• Brochure Maker
• Diagram Maker
• Flowchart Maker
• Flyer Maker
• Graph Maker
• Invitation Maker
• Pitch Deck Creator
• Poster Maker
• Presentation Maker
• Report Maker
• Resume Maker
• Social Media Graphic Maker
• Timeline Maker
• Venn Diagram Maker
• Screen Recorder
• Social Media Video Maker
• Video Cropper
• Video to Text Converter
• Video Views Calculator
• AI Flyer Generator
• AI Infographic
• AI Instagram Post Generator
• AI Newsletter Generator
• AI Report Generator
• AI Timeline Generator
• For Communications
• For Education
• For eLearning
• For Financial Services
• For Healthcare
• For Human Resources
• For Marketing
• For Nonprofits
• Brochure Templates
• Flyer Templates
• Infographic Templates
• Newsletter Templates
• Presentation Templates
• Resume Templates
• Business Infographics
• Business Proposals
• Education Templates
• Health Posters
• HR Templates
• Sales Presentations
• Community Template
• Explore all free templates on Piktochart
• The Business Storyteller Podcast
• User Stories
• Video Tutorials
• Visual Academy
• Need help? Check out our Help Center
• Earn money as a Piktochart Affiliate Partner
• Compare prices and features across Free, Pro, and Enterprise plans.
• For professionals and small teams looking for better brand management.
• For organizations seeking enterprise-grade onboarding, support, and SSO.
• Discounted plan for students, teachers, and education staff.
• Great causes deserve great pricing. Registered nonprofits pay less.

Presentations

The 11 Best Presentation Software to Use in 2023

The ability to effectively share ideas, illustrate a concept, and convince an audience is invaluable whether you’re a student or a C-level executive. These days, the presentation software you use to create presentations is just as important as your public-speaking skills.

On top of that, most companies have transitioned to remote work recently due to the current coronavirus situation, and now need to share their stories online through a virtual conference room with their distributed teams and external audience members.

That’s why we’ve come up with a list of some of the best presentation software available right now, so you can choose a compatible and innovative presentation maker that includes the best presentation tools to suit your specific needs.

Choose the best presentation software by weighing the pros and cons

You’ll see some of the most popular presentation apps: from free to paid subscription platforms, and slideshow applications to full-blown visual design presentation software with interactive features and more.

Each presentation software has its pros and cons, so it’s up to you to figure out which suits your needs best; consider the software learning curve, whether your company is made up of Mac users or Windows users and the software compatibility, if you need an enterprise account or free account, etc.

Let’s dive in!

1. Piktochart

Piktochart is a presentation software that can create a variety of design visuals, from infographics to social media stories.

An area in which Piktochart shines is crafting unique presentations. 

On Piktochart, users can choose from a wide range of professionally-designed presentation templates .

These custom templates include everything from monthly marketing reports to employee onboarding templates.

This broad selection of customizable templates is especially useful for those who don’t have much design experience or know-how but need to create a visually stunning unique presentation in a pinch. 

Piktochart’s presentation maker also makes it easy to edit presentations and include design elements such as lists, timelines, comparisons, graphs, and different types of charts through drag-and-drop tools.

You can even make visual maps and interactive charts to keep your audience engaged throughout your presentation. 

And if your company uses a Piktochart TEAM plan , you can enjoy the platform’s ability to store brand assets , color schemes, and bespoke templates. Here, replicating company-branded visuals is a breeze. 

Piktochart comes with a free version but with certain limitations. Active visuals are capped at five per month and published visuals have a Piktochart watermark.

If you want features such as team template collaboration, project sharing, and annotated commenting, you’ll have to get a Team account. To sum it up:

• Lots of professionally-designed templates 
• Good for both design professionals and non-professionals 
• Easy to store brand assets and bespoke templates for future presentations
• Access presentation tools from anywhere via a web browser
• Free presentation app version available
• Might take some getting used to if you’re used to PowerPoint presentations

Present and collaborate with ease using Piktochart’s presentation templates.

You don’t have to worry about how your presentation will look like. Piktochart’s easy-to-edit templates will take care of the visual aspect for you.

2. Microsoft PowerPoint

Microsoft PowerPoint is often the first presentation software that comes to mind.

Once considered the “O.G.” and best presentation software available, it is still widely used and has a familiar interface—which means most users are comfortable with it. 

This presentation app has everything you need to create a presentation: from animated transitions for interactive presentations to pre-installed fonts and graphic elements.

Users can also upload their own fonts, graphics, and images into their finished presentation.

Lastly, it’s available as part of the Microsoft Office software package; and you can work on your presentations via the web and mobile devices, for offline viewing as well as online. 

However, PowerPoint is no longer considered the best presentation software, as it has very few templates to choose from, and these tend to fall quite flat compared to modern apps and software.

It’s easy to fall back into boring slideshow PowerPoint files if you don’t know what you’re doing.

And because most people use PowerPoint, you’re likely using the same template as the next guy. 

As standalone presentation software, PowerPoint is pricey at US$139.99—and accessible through only one device unless you upgrade your package.

And while PowerPoint is primarily a slideshow application and presentation maker, its strengths are limited to this category. 

So if you’re looking for the best presentation software, and bang for your buck for a robust presentation tool, you might want to look elsewhere. 

• Market leader in slideshow applications to create slides
• Widely used and familiar interface for the presentation process
• Reliable and usable on most devices as well as being a desktop app
• Flat templates
• Limitations with its standalone-presentation software price

3. Google Slides

Google Slides is a slideshow application that is very similar to PowerPoint.  But there are three main differences: it’s fully online (while also allowing for offline viewing), collaborative, and free. 

The great thing about Google Slides (besides the fact that it’s completely free for anyone with a Google account) is that you can log on via your browser or through its official app. 

You can access all Google Slides presentations from any device (mobile, tablet, and desktop), and share them with other people so you can collaborate in real-time. 

Google Drive allows all your presentations to live on the cloud, accessible to all marketing and sales teams, with unparalleled ease of use.

And there’s no need to worry about disruptions as all changes are saved as they happen, as long as you have an active internet connection. 

Additionally, anyone familiar with PowerPoint will be comfortable using Google’s iteration and likely be delighted by Google Drive and the slide library available. 

It’s also a lot simpler, so even those new to presentation-making will find it easy to navigate. 

However, some might find Google Slides too simple as it lacks the wealth of features available on PowerPoint. 

These include embedding videos from sources other than YouTube, plus adding audio tracks and sound effects, limiting the ability to create unique interactive presentations. 

Some users also encounter issues with downloading and exporting to different formats, including PowerPoint. 

Some slides may even turn out completely different from the original version. 

All in all, Google Slides is a great option for those who are looking for a free application and only need to create simple presentations. 

• The free plan supports professional presentations
• Web-based and collaborative to create presentations
• Simple and familiar interface for an online presentation software
• Too simple for advanced presentation making
• Difficult to export to other formats
• Limited templates and customization options for interactive content

You could say Keynote is Apple’s version of PowerPoint. It’s also a slideshow application—but in typical Apple fashion, it comes with a sleek, minimalist interface and is considered one of the best presentation apps on the market. 

There are 30 different themes to choose from, which serve as templates for those who need a quick fix. And it can do most of what PowerPoint can. 

Keynote’s main perk is that it’s part of the Apple ecosystem. 

That means it has built-in iCloud and Apple Watch support so users can control their presentation from their mobile device or even their wrists with just a click. 

This presentation app comes pre-installed on most Mac devices. Otherwise, you can purchase it from the Apple store for just US$9.99 for mobile and US$19.99 for OS X. 

The big downside is that Keynote is exclusive to Mac OS. 

Non-Apple users can create, upload, and sync their own Keynote presentations through their iCloud Drive, but this presentation app is only truly helpful only for those who use multiple Apple devices. 

And if you’re used to working on PowerPoint, you might find Keynote a bit confusing in the beginning, especially when editing presentations. 

• Sleek, minimalist interface 
• Free with most Apple devices
• No access for PC and Android devices except through iCloud

5. SlideDog

Sliding away from straightforward slideshow applications and other presentation apps, SlideDog is a web-based multimedia presentation tool that lets users combine different types of media to create and edit presentations. 

This includes everything from PowerPoint decks to videos and even PDFs that can all be played side by side without any awkward transitions. 

It’s also extremely easy to customize a SlideDog presentation. 

You just need to upload the files into the SlideDog web browser application, and then drag and drop them according to the order in which you want them to play. 

You can control your presentations and playlists from another device, and audience members can view your slideshow on their devices by clicking a link. 

SlideDog has a free presentation app version that provides all of the basic features. 

However, live sharing and premium support are only available with a Pro account that costs US$99 per year, and not via the free version alone.

While SlideDog is technically considered presentation software, you can’t actually create presentations on it. 

You can simply stitch together different pre-made presentations in various formats into what is essentially a playlist. 

Lastly, SlideDog supports only Windows devices, so Apple and Linux users can’t use it. 

• Supports a lot of different media
• Provides live-sharing
• More dynamic compared to the usual slideshow presentation
• Only collates media; doesn’t create them

6. Haiku Deck 

Ever come across presentations with size-eight fonts and blocks of indecipherable paragraphs on each slide? 

You can avoid such an unfortunate scenario with Haiku Deck. 

HaikuDeck is a web and mobile application that favors images over text. 

It works by limiting the number of words users can put on each slide, and allowing them to search for images on their platform related to the slide’s main idea. 

This makes it ideal for those who want to simplify their thoughts and let the images do all the talking. 

Users have over 40 million royalty-free photos to choose from, plus dozens of simple slide layouts on the platform itself. 

While this certainly simplifies the process of creating a visually rich presentation, it can be limiting for those who need to include more information into their slides. 

It’s a great option for someone giving a TED Talk, for example.

But for others who need to pass on more facts and figures, having a built-in word limit might be too restrictive.  

• Simple and easy to use 
• Access to millions of royalty-free stock images
• May be too simple for some
• No Android support
• Limited features

7. Prezi Business

Among the other presentation software on this list, Prezi Business might be one of the most unique presentation tools. 

Rather than offering a regular slideshow format, Prezi looks more like a 3D interactive mind map where viewers jump dynamically from one idea to the next. 

You can zoom in on one “slide” and then zoom out for the next. 

Prezi has over 100 templates to choose from and comes with a very simple interface and a drag-and-drop style of editing. 

It’s compatible with both Mac and PC desktops as well as smartphones. 

It’s also similar to a regular PowerPoint deck in that you can jump back and forth from one “slide” to the next. 

And like SlideDog, you can send viewers the link to the presentation as you’re presenting. 

Also, up to 10 people can work on a Prezi presentation at the same time, one of its main selling points. 

This is great for collaboration, but having so many hands-on deck at once can get messy. 

• Dynamic and immersive presentations
• Highly visual
• Easy to use
• May not be appropriate for all types of presentations

In a world of slides and presentations, standing out is the key. Ludus brings the flair of graphic design into the world of presentations.

At its core, Ludus is the bridge between presentation tools and design software. It enables users to infuse their slides with the kind of design elements you’d typically find in advanced design platforms.

Not only can you import assets from design giants like Adobe, but its seamless integration with tools like Unsplash and Giphy makes sourcing visuals a breeze.

It’s a fairly affordable tool for all its features compared to the other paid options in this list, as users pay 12.49 euros monthly (if billed annually).

However, while Ludus’ robust design capabilities can elevate the look of your presentation, those unfamiliar with design tools might find there’s a learning curve.

• Merges presentation creation with advanced design tools.
• Seamless integration with popular design platforms and visual databases.
• Offers a unique edge in presentation aesthetics.
• Might be a tad overwhelming for non-designers
• Can have a steeper learning curve for those used to more straightforward platforms

9. Slidebean

Crafting a compelling presentation demands not only compelling content but also a design that can captivate your audience. Enter Slidebean.

Slidebean offers an intelligent design solution, using AI to transform raw content into professionally styled presentations. This platform streamlines the design process, allowing you to focus on the message rather than fretting over aesthetics.

The basic plan is free and allows you to create a presentation. But if you want to share or download your presentations, as well as unlock the full suite of features, you’ll need to sign up for the All-Access plan priced at $199 per year.

While it provides a quick and efficient method to produce polished slides, it also offers features for sharing, collaboration, and viewer analytics, adding an edge to your presentation strategy.

However, for professionals who prioritize granular design control, the automated design might feel limiting at times.

• AI-driven design ensures visually appealing presentations.
• Features for collaboration and viewer insights.
• Efficient design process reduces time and effort.
• Might not offer the detailed design customization some users desire.
• Automated choices may not always align with specific branding or style preferences.

10. ClearSlide

Having great visuals to drive your point home can be the difference between getting a sale across the line or customers walking away. ClearSlide stands out in this area as a presentation tool for businesses laser-focused on boosting their sales and marketing game.

At its core, ClearSlide is all about leveling up business presentations. Whether you’re marketing a new product or tracking client engagement, it’s got tools that cater to every need.

Whether it’s a PowerPoint, a PDF, or something from Google Drive or Dropbox, ClearSlide makes it simple to upload and work with these files.

The unique edge? ClearSlide’s virtual meeting space pops open with just a click. It’s all about seamless, professional presentations without the hassle.

Beyond just slides, the platform dives deep into metrics and analytics, ensuring every presentation is backed by data-driven insights. And the tool is available for $35 per month, which isn’t too pricey for medium-sized businesses.

However, its complexity isn’t for everyone. For some, the variety of features might seem a tad overwhelming, and its focus on metrics might be a bit much for those just wanting a basic presentation tool.

• Seamless virtual meetings and presentations
• Integrates with popular platforms
• Offers insightful analytics for sales and marketing
• Might feel complex for some users
• Limited transition and design effects
• Mobile experience could be better

Stepping into the world of animation, Vyond, once known as GoAnimate, allows users to turn their narratives into professional animated videos. For those looking to elevate their content without diving deep into animation complexities, Vyond can be the go-to tool.

This platform is more than just drag-and-drop animations. It integrates AI capabilities with Vyond Go, which transforms text prompts into rough-cut videos.

Fancy a quick draft for your upcoming project? This AI assistant is up for the task. And if perfection is your game, take it to Vyond Studio, filled with an array of characters, templates, and backgrounds.

The Essential Plan at $25 per month is suitable for individuals on a budget. However, if you want to export videos at 1080p and above, have collaboration tools, or different export options, you’ll need to sign up for the Professional Plan at $92 per month.

As robust as the tool is, there are still some kinks to iron out. AI voiceovers might still need some tweaks, and detailed color customizations can be a bit tricky, but the tool’s strengths, especially for businesses, are undeniable.

• Hassle-free video creation for beginners to experts
• Generous library of pre-made assets
• AI-powered video and script creation with Vyond Go
• AI voiceovers might feel a bit robotic
• Some customization limitations for specific props and scenes

The best presentation software is…

 …completely up to you! 

When it comes to presentation software, the world is your oyster. 

Each of these tools either has a free or trial version for you to check out, so you don’t have to commit just yet. 

When it’s time to choose, consider the following aspects to find the right presentation software for you: 

• Ease of use. Is it easy for you to understand or will it require lots of training before you can start creating presentations? 
• Accessibility. Can you access your presentation software from any device or are you limited to carrying your laptop to every presentation? 
• Real-time collaboration. Can multiple people work on the same project or do you have to keep downloading and emailing drafts? 
• Create design tools. Can you create presentations with dynamic design elements or are you stuck with the same kind of slide each time? 
• Template availability. Is this tool only accessible to a design professional or can anyone create stunning presentations through pre-designed and updated templates? 

Piktochart , for example, would be a fantastic presentation software choice among the long list of PowerPoint alternatives for teams looking for a variety of eye-catching designs without requiring much technical know-how. Meanwhile, Microsoft PowerPoint might be the best presentation software for those who are just looking to play it safe. 

Hopefully, this best presentation software list sheds some light on the tools at your disposal. Choose wisely! 

Collaborate on presentations, reports, and more with Piktochart.

Watch this free demo to learn how your team can collaborate on visual content projects more effectively with Piktochart.

Robin Geuens is a writer turned SEO specialist. When he's not wondering what Google is up to next he's either reading, taking courses, playing video games, or wondering where to travel to next.

Other Posts

Mastering the Craft: Presentation Design Strategies From a Pro

How to Make a Presentation (2023 Guide With Tips & Templates)

How to Nail Your Brand Presentation: Examples and Pro Tips

Do you want to be part of these success stories, join more than 11 million who already use piktochart to craft visual stories that stick..

8 Best Presentation Software Tools (Free and Paid) in 2023

Designing a presentation that’s engaging, informative, and aesthetically pleasing is challenging. If you’re a non-designer, you may find it even tougher to put together a visual slide deck using presentation software.

You’re not the only one either–– 45% of presenters find it difficult to design creative layouts for their presentations. But with intuitive templates, user-friendly interfaces, and effective collaboration, the whole creation process becomes easier.

To help you create effective presentations, we’ve made a list of the best presentation software available now.

What makes great presentation software?

Downloadable or cloud-based. Presentation software is no longer limited to downloadable desktop programs–today, many software options are available via your web browser. Whether you want to work offline or prefer to back your presentations up on the cloud, there are multiple options.

User-friendly. It can be easy to get caught up in all the creative possibilities of a software’s advanced features. Really, though, you need a software solution that will create professional-looking presentations and be easy for your team to use. Think about how tech-savvy the users are and which features will be most useful to them.

Device compatibility. Depending on where you’re giving your presentation, you may want the option of presenting from a tablet or mobile device. Some presentation software come with mobile-compatible apps too––enabling you to make edits on the go.

Content asset library. Top-quality images and graphics help ensure your presentation looks sharp and professional. Today, many presentation software tools come with stock image and video channel integrations to make it easier to include engaging visuals. After all, no one wants to see endless slides of black and white text.

Slideware vs. canvas-based. Conventional presentations usually follow a linear slide-by-slide presentation format. Increasingly though, presentation software tools are providing non-linear canvas-based presentation options which enable users to fly around a modular digital map. With canvas-based presentations, users are free to switch between topics without having to follow a set one-way route.

8 best presentation software options

1. zoho show.

Zoho Show is a cloud-based software that is part of Zoho’s office CRM suite. This is a top option if you’re looking for strong team collaboration features, easy-to-use design features, and robust formatting tools.

Its clean user interface is simple to navigate—making it easier to focus on building your presentation. Choose from 100+ presentation templates and quickly insert tables, charts, images, and text boxes.

Top features:

• Integrations enable users to add videos via YouTube and audio via Soundcloud
• Reach a wider audience by publishing slides online, sharing the link on social media, and embedding presentations on your site as an Lframe
• Collaboration features enable team member tagging using “@” and contextual commenting

Limitations:

• You can only create presentations from a computer—there’s currently no option to build presentations from other devices
• Custom branding is only available with the top paid plan

Pricing: Zoho Show is free for individuals. For access to Zoho CRM’s full suite of tools, the Standard plan is $20/user/month.

Best for: Startups who want to use Zoho’s suite of tools for team collaboration.

New kid on the block, presentation software Prezi , has turned traditional (and sometimes dull) work presentations on their head. Instead of typical slide-based presentations, Prezi pioneers conversational presentations by giving users a single giant canvas.

Within the canvas, you can add blocks of images or text and even create mini slides. While presenting, users can fly around different sections of the canvas and zoom in to look at specific pieces of content in more detail.

• Show your content alongside a live or recorded video of you presenting, an effective way of maintaining a personal connection during meetings
• Choose from a library of hundreds of customizable presentation templates including quarterly business reviews, daily standup meetings, and portfolio templates
• Integrate with other work apps like Slack, Google Meet, and Zoom for easier sharing and presenting of Prezi projects between team members
• Charts and graphs aren’t totally customizable or editable for a more personalized appearance
• With the free or lower-tiered versions, your presentations depend on the internet to be viewed
• The zooming in and out movements can be confusing for users who aren’t familiar with Prezi presentations

Pricing: The Free plan enables users to create and share up to five presentations online. The Plus plan is $15/month and allows unlimited projects and offline access.

Best for: Startup founders and digital creators looking for an original style of presenting that doesn’t follow the conventional slide-by-slide methods.

You may already be familiar with Canva as a social media graphics design tool. But you might not know that you can also create visually pleasing presentation slides.

Canva is great for making slick presentations straight from your web browser. The presentation software comes with a few free customizable layouts to help you get going quickly. Alternatively, you can create your own template from scratch.

• Search a library of thousands of free images to include in your presentation
• Include different content elements like logos, grids, charts, graphics, shapes, and icons
• Invite team members to collaborate on your presentation online or share your finished version
• You can’t import presentations from PowerPoint or export presentations in a PowerPoint-editable format
• You can’t simultaneously collaborate with team members on images

Pricing: The Free plan has templates, design types, and images to help you get started. A Pro plan is $12.99/month and provides more images, template storage, and a branding kit.

Best for: Users who want to create a visual presentation quickly and effectively from their web browser.

4. Microsoft PowerPoint

Created in 1987, Microsoft PowerPoint is probably the best-known presentation software on this list. Although many other companies have built more advanced presentation tools, PowerPoint remains popular due to its ease of use, and familiarity.

As the original presentation software, PowerPoint has all the main features you’d expect. Providing a menu of options for animations, transitions, and formatting, along with a library of templates, PowerPoint is suited to advanced users as well as those creating their first presentation.

Initially only available as downloadable software, users can now access Microsoft 365, a cloud-based package of productivity apps including Office 365 programs Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.

• Use Android and IOS apps for building presentations on the go
• Embed files created in other Microsoft Office apps like graphs created in Excel, or any other programs that enable Object Linking and Embedding (OLE)
• Extensive animation and transition options help presentations look professional
• Some of PowerPoint’s templates look outdated
• The free version only enables presentation viewing and no editing or collaboration

Pricing: The Microsoft 365 Personal plan is $69.99/year and allows access for one user. A Family plan enables up to 6 users and is $99.99/year.

Best for: Entrepreneurs who aren’t seeking out innovative new tools or features.

5. Google Slides

Part of Google Workspace, Google Slides is another app that’s freely available for both personal and business use. Just as you can create spreadsheets in Sheets or documents in Google Docs, you can create presentations in Slides.

Similar to PowerPoint in layout and features, users of the Microsoft software should be able to find their way around the software and identify the locations of key tools and settings. Like PowerPoint, Slides puts the current slide in the center, with other slides available in a vertical menu on the left side.

Using the horizontal toolbar, users can perform actions like embed videos, insert diagrams, and include animations.

• Up to 100 users (with editing permission) can collaborate on a presentation simultaneously
• A built-in group chat helps you track what everyone is doing
• Play your presentation in presenter mode so you can preview how it will look to your audience
• Exporting and importing between Slides and PowerPoint can cause messy layout changes
• The template selection is limited and basic (although you can import hundreds of others)

Pricing: Google Workspace is free for personal use but if you find yourself needing more logins and storage space, you can upgrade to the Business Starter plan for $6/user/month.

Best for: Entrepreneurs already using Google Workspace who need access to an easy-to-use and effective collaborative presentation software.

6. StoryDoc

Storydoc is an online interactive presentation maker, ideal for sales teams, business owners, and product marketing. Designed as a modern-day business alternative to static slides and PDF presentations, Storydocs are proven to engage more viewers than conventional presentations thanks to an amazing interface and advanced data visualization options.

The software comes with an array of built-in templates for all business use cases from sales decks to pitch decks to business proposals, so that anyone can create a stunning and effective presentation.

• Allows embedding video and social media content, sign-up forms, schedulers, and personalized outbound
• Integrates with major CRMs like Salesforce and Hubspot
• Presentations are designed for any device and look perfect on mobile
• Tracking analytics allow you to see how and when a prospect or an investor interacted with your deck
• Advanced storytelling features and slides
• Use for web only
• Can be pricey for single users

Pricing:  Free trial for the first 14 days after which a starter plan is $40 per seat/month

Best for:  Medium and large sized companies with big sales teams and the daily need for high–performance sales collateral.

7. Slidebean

Slidebean is a top choice for startup founders and entrepreneurs. Their template library features decks made for investor updates, demo day presentations, and sales plans.

Slidebean even has the original pitch deck template Airbnb used to raise their first $600,000 round back in 2009. Entrepreneurs can access this one and others to help build a slide deck to present to investors.

• Track your investors’ slide activity by viewing which slides they saw, how much time they spent on each, and what percentage of the presentation they interacted with
• AI helps you arrange the best possible slide layouts and configurations
• Use presentation templates created by the likes of Doordash and Tesla
• Fewer graphics and shapes available compared to other options like PowerPoint
• Fewer templates available—and most are geared towards startup founders and entrepreneurs

Pricing: Users can access Slidebean for free. But to enable collaboration, exportation, and access to more templates, you’ll need to subscribe to the Starter plan at $8/month.

Best for: Startup founders and entrepreneurs looking to pitch their business to investors.

8. Paste by WeTransfer

Paste is an intuitive and easy-to-use presentation software inspired by the modular compartments of Japanese lunch boxes.

Flexible layouts enable you to change the size of text, insert columns, and reorganize your slide without messing up the rest of the slide’s formatting.

Ever proofread your presentation so much that your eyes hurt? Eye-balling font consistency, text size, and image formatting is time-consuming and boring, to say the least. Paste does a good job of removing this task by automatically adjusting your slides using AI.

Non-designers will love how easy it is to get started, too. Simply drop in all your videos, images, and GIFS—Paste will then arrange them into a well-presented slide.

• Responsive slides put your content in place as you drop it in
• Multi-slide controls enable you to edit multiple slides in one go
• Integrations with stock image library Unsplash, Giphy, Figma, and Google Workspace
• No controls for image appearance settings, like cropping, color, or contrast adjustments
• No way of inserting images and icons outside of the layout Paste provides

Pricing: Create up to three decks with the Free plan. Upgrade to the Pro plan for $12/month to get unlimited decks, real-time collaboration, and 200 GB storage.

Best for: Non-designers who need to quickly create a visually pleasing presentation.

Which is the best presentation software for you?

Don’t automatically default to using PowerPoint as your go-to presentation software. As you can see, there are loads of alternative top-notch presentation software options with innovative features.

The best presentation software for you will depend on your personal skills and business requirements. If you’re a time-strapped solopreneur, opt for presentation software with ready-to-go templates like those from Collidu , Paste, or Slidebean.

If you work as part of a team, choose Google Slides or Zoho Show for their collaboration features.

Test out a few of the options above and remember to check out the AppSumo store for all the latest software deals. We have several deals for presentation software and templates for creating an engaging presentation.

When you use links on our website, we may earn a fee.

Best Presentation Software of 2024

Table of Contents

• Best Presentation Software
• Things To Consider When Buying
• How We Chose

Everyone has a message to share in some form. With presentation software, you can communicate that message a little easier and with more spark. If you don't have design and animation skills, don't worry; apps like Google Slides and Microsoft PowerPoint make it easy to craft a slideshow that helps people understand the concepts you're trying to convey.

Many of the apps in this buyers' guide are geared toward business presentations since that is often the primary use case. However, a few provide some slick tools for educators, entrepreneurs, community groups, and even family members to make a photo slideshow for a family reunion. Read on for the best presentation software available today.

• Best Overall: Google Slides »
• Most Compatible: Microsoft PowerPoint »
• Best For Mac Users: Apple Keynote »
• Most Flexible: Prezi »
• Best Budget: Visme »
• Best For Entrepreneurs: Slidebean »
• Most Powerful: Canva »

Best Overall: Google Slides

Highly integrated With Other Apps

Totally free

Not integrated with Microsoft products

Minimal support

When Google Slides debuted in 2006, it took the world by storm. That’s because it was integrated even back then with Gmail, Google Docs, and other popular Google apps many of us use in business, at school, and in our personal lives.

Google Slides is entirely free, and there are no hidden costs or upgrade plans. What’s surprising, though, about Google Slides is that it is a highly capable app for presentations – easy to use, with plenty of templates, fonts, animation options, and integrations.

Apart from that, the key feature here is real-time collaboration. Other users can join you as you create and edit slides. They can comment and make suggested changes, or simply start editing the slides on their own. (You can decide if other users can suggest changes or make them directly.) You also can view speaker notes on a laptop when you run the slideshow on an HDTV or projector. Google Slides integrates nicely into the online meeting app Google Meet, and it can open Microsoft PowerPoint files and export in that format as well.

Overall, Google Slides wins extra points because of how intuitive it is. There’s hardly any learning curve with the app, and since it runs in a browser window, everything you create and edit will be saved automatically. For business users, teachers, or just about anyone in a hurry to share a complex message, creating a Google Slides presentation is a snap – which is why it is our overall top pick.

Specifications:

• Operating systems are supported: Windows, Mac, Web, iOS, Android, Linux
• Number of templates and designs available: 23
• Integrated apps: Adobe Creative Cloud, Dropbox, Box, LumApps
• Collaboration features: Live editing, suggested edits
• Multimedia supported: Photos, videos, audio, GIFs, and stickers
• Export options: PDF, PowerPoint, Webpage, JPEG
• Customer support options: Google Workspace only
• Added features: Google Duet AI
• Interface enhancements: Real-time editing and collaboration

Most Compatible: Microsoft PowerPoint

Highly compatible

Online and desktop versions

Easy to use

No free version

Templates are not as trendy

Microsoft PowerPoint is the app you want for compatibility with other apps and programs. Released in 1990, this presentation app is well-known in business circles and runs on just about any computer in the world. Because it’s so compatible, you will likely not have any trouble running the app on your phone or a tablet, in a browser, or even on seriously outdated PC laptops and desktops.

While apps like Prezi add slick animations and transitions that make a presentation come to life, PowerPoint is more like a trusted business partner; it works on just about any computer, the interface is well-known and straightforward, and it’s likely that everyone you know and collaborate with is already familiar with the app. Every other presentation app we reviewed also supports PowerPoint in terms of directly opening or importing the file, and exporting as a PowerPoint file.

You'll need a Microsoft 365 Personal Edition subscription to use PowerPoint. It may be an app that’s already installed and included with a new computer, at least for a trial period.

• Operating systems are supported: Windows, Mac, Web, iOS, Android
• Integrated apps: Adobe PDF, Shutterstock, YouTube, and many others
• Multimedia supported: Photos, videos, audio
• Export options: PowerPoint, XML, PDF, JPEG, and many more
• Customer support options: Personal or business support
• Added features: Integrated live camera, Microsoft Teams integration
• Interface enhancements: Microsoft Copilot, speaker coach

Best For Mac Users: Apple Keynote

Exceptional designs

Desktop only

Graphic designers love Apple Keynote, mostly because the included templates and design options are so stellar. Your presentation will really come to life, helping you communicate about even complex subjects with flair and a trendy look.

Using the app feels a bit like you're the late Steve Jobs creating an award-winning presentation that will grab an audience. Jobs had a way of captivating those in the audience, and Keynote helps you do that with some of the best presentation templates around. For example, there are 40 templates to choose from, many of them full of color and using the trendiest fonts. Keynote also includes 100 transitions and animations to liven up a presentation. The app also includes 700 different shapes and icons that will help you enhance your slides.

Apple Keynote is powerful enough for any user, but it’s important to know the limitations. For starters, Keynote only runs on Mac computers. That makes it less compatible with Google Slides or Microsoft PowerPoint. You can export the presentation from Keynote as a PowerPoint file, which is fine, but it means no one can edit the Keynote slides directly; they will have to use PowerPoint.

Keynote also only runs as a desktop app. That means you won’t benefit from the live editing and commenting features of Google Slides, where you can collaborate with anyone in real time on the same file. Instead, Keynote is more static, as slideshows can't be edited as a group in a browser window. It’s still incredibly powerful and intuitive but with a few key downsides.

• Operating systems are supported: Mac, iOS
• Number of templates and designs available: 50
• Integrated apps: FaceTime, WebEx, Zoom, iCloud
• Collaboration features: Collaborate through iCloud
• Multimedia supported: Video, audio, images, 3D objects, stickers
• Export options: PDF, PowerPoint, Movies, animated GIFs, images
• Customer support options: Online help, support communities
• Added features: Cinematic transitions, Keynote Remote on iPhone
• Interface enhancements: Inspectors help with formatting

Most Flexible: Prezi

Unique concept

Trendy visuals

Unique design templates

Harder to learn

There’s something very compelling about Prezi, the presentation app that provides the most flexibility in terms of the message you are communicating. For starters, this is an app that knows it’s all about the message, whether you're an educator, business owner, entrepreneur, or even a scientist or engineer. Instead of a slideshow, you create a “canvas” with topics and subtopics. Think of it as a way to augment what you are saying with animated annotations, swoosh effects, and charts.

Prezi is the best at guiding you to the most powerful design features and giving you the tools to make even a complex subject more interesting and easier to understand. Part of this extreme flexibility has to do with how you're not creating slides at all, but enhancing a topic. Another way to think of Prezi is more like an animated whiteboard; when you show a presentation, it can come to life as you speak through a webcam.

All of this flexibility means you aren't limited to a boring slideshow, although there may be times when you are asked to make a slideshow and nothing more. For example, a school assignment or a boss might dictate that you need to create basic slides, not an animated whiteboard session. This is where you have to decide if Prezi matches the goals of the message you are communicating about.

• Pricing options and plans: Standard ($7/month), Plus ($15/month), Premium ($19/month)
• Operating systems are supported: Windows, Mac, Linux
• Number of templates and designs available: 210+
• Integrated apps: Google Drive, Slack, Canva, Zoom
• Collaboration features: Real-time editing, comments
• Multimedia supported: Photos, icons, video, GIF
• Export options: PNG, JPG, PDF, GIF, and MP4.
• Customer support options: Knowledgebase, online support
• Added features: Offline mode, analytics
• Interface enhancements: Broadcast link, tool tips

Best Budget: Visme

Free version available

Added visual tools

Good overall value

It takes more time to learn

Expensive pro plans

Visme is the best budget option because there is a free version that still provides many of the features you might need. It’s also a good value, because (similar to Canva) you can access all of the graphic design features to create infographics, brochures, logos, and rich documents all without paying for the premium version.

Even more important, Visme is a good value if you do choose the Starter or Pro plans because you can then unlock advanced features you might only find in Adobe Visual products. For example, at the Pro level, you can create an entire brand kit for a company including logos, brochures, and flyers that all have the same look.

While it's called an all-in-one marketing design platform and has hints of Canva, the first tool you would likely use is for creating presentations (e.g., It's the most prominent tool listed on their site). Because everything is geared more toward marketing and sales, Visme templates emphasize things like growth metrics, charts, and bullet points used to explain a product or service. Visme is also meant more for a group of business users. You can collaborate in real-time, leave comments on presentations, and even follow a workflow to mark presentation tasks as in progress or done.

Like Canva, because the Visme app is part of a suite of visual design products, it might take a little more time to learn all of the added tools. The presentation tool is just one of many included, even if this tool alone is easy to learn.

Visme is an extensive product with an upgrade path that unlocks more templates, customer support, and more supported file formats. Overall, it’s a good value because you can still create presentations without having to pay extra.

• Operating systems are supported: Mac, PC, iOS, Android
• Number of templates and designs available: 13,000
• Integrated apps: Google Drive, Vimeo, Dropbox, Survey Monkey, and many more
• Collaboration features: Real-time collaboration, assign tasks
• Multimedia supported: Photos, videos, audio, GIFs, 3D graphics
• Export options: JPEG, PNG, PDF, MP4, GIF, PPTX, HTML5
• Customer support options: Email, chat, in-app
• Added features: AI features, forms
• Interface enhancements: Tool tips, video training

Best For Entrepreneurs: Slidebean

Design for entrepreneurs and salespeople

Unique features

Not as powerful as some

Not as well-known

Most presentation software is flexible and powerful enough for any message and for any purpose. However, Slidebean focuses on a more narrow segment. The app is designed to create a “pitch deck,” which is something an entrepreneur or salesperson uses to pitch a product.

For example, let’s say your company sells a new widget. Using Slidebean, you can explain the features and benefits, include a slide about pricing, and use the tools that are intended more for selling a concept than perhaps merely explaining it.

Once you finish creating the pitch deck, you can share it as a link for others to view. You can then measure how much time people spend viewing the slides, including time spent on specific slides in the presentation. Another major differentiator with Slidebean is that you can work with professional designers and writers (for a fee, of course) who will create the pitch desk and write all of the copy for you.

• Operating systems are supported: Windows and Mac browsers
• Number of templates and designs available: 160
• Integrated apps: None
• Collaboration features: Editing (not simultaneous), sharing
• Multimedia supported: Images, icons, GIFs
• Export options: PPT, PDF, and HTML
• Customer support options: Knowledgebase
• Added features: Consult with experts, finance templates
• Interface enhancements: Startup video lessons

Most Powerful: Canva

Thousand of templates

Integrates with other Canva tools

Limited export options

Known as an “online graphical design platform” for everyday users, Canva provides plenty of tools for creating logos, brochures, postcards, and presentations.

Because these tools are all integrated, Canva is powerful enough for any message you want to communicate. It’s ideal for business, personal use, and schools. If you decide to build a presentation, you can also incorporate logos, fonts, clip art, and animations that are built into Canva. It means the palette for creating a presentation is more flexible because all of the other design tools are right at your fingertips. Let’s say you want to create a pitch deck about a new startup. You can create the logo, choose the colors and fonts, and then create the slideshow. Most presentation apps in our buyers' guide other than Visme don’t provide this level of flexibility and power in one online app.

Canva lets you run the presentation from within Canva itself, or you can export the slides and use them in Microsoft PowerPoint. There are thousands of templates available. Once you select a look and feel for your presentation, you can pivot and use those same graphics, fonts, and designs in a brochure or other material.

With all of this power in terms of visual design software comes a slight learning curve. Canva is intuitive and the interface is well-designed, but there are so many tools available that it takes some time to learn them all.

• Operating systems are supported: PC, Mac, iOS, Android, browser
• Number of templates and designs available: Thousands
• Integrated apps: Google Drive, Dropbox, Slack, HubSpot, and many more
• Collaboration features: Real-time editing, whiteboards
• Multimedia supported : Photos, icons, graphics, data visualizations, media elements
• Export options: PDF, JPG, PNG, PPTX, MP4
• Customer support options: Email
• Added features: Magic Switch, Magic Write, Magic Animate
• Interface enhancements: Search for designs, generate with Magic Design

The Bottom Line

If you're short on time and just need to create a presentation without a lot of hassle, Google Slides is the app for you. It’s completely free without any trial versions of “pro” upgrades, yet it's also quite powerful and intuitive to learn. Google Slides is also our top pick because it integrates into other Google apps like Gmail and Google Docs, is widely used and highly compatible, and still gets the job done when the main goal is to finish a slideshow and share your message.

Things To Consider When Buying Presentation Software

Features and functionality: When it comes to presentation software, it’s all about the templates. As you are considering which app to use, it’s a good idea to evaluate which templates are available and if they meet your needs. We’ve also noted how many templates are included with each app. Beyond that, look for the supported file formats since that will determine who can use and open the presentation. Collaboration features are also important, making it easier to work on a presentation within a group and make comments for everyone to see.

Ease of use and user interface: Creating a presentation shouldn't feel cumbersome. When you start the app, it should be easy to create the first slide from a template, add more slides, fill in the text and images, and finish the entire project without having to learn complex features. Apple Keynote is a good example of an app that's intuitive at first, and then you can always explore more advanced features later on.

Compatibility with different file formats: The most well-known presentation app is Microsoft PowerPoint. So it’s important that the app you choose supports the popular PowerPoint format. Beyond that, look for software that also supports PDF files in case you want a printed version of your slideshow or to share it online.

Collaboration and sharing capabilities: With presentation software, being able to work on a slideshow with a group of people all at the same time can be a time-saver but also produce better results. It should also be easy to leave comments for others to review. Once you're done with the presentation, it should also be easy to share the file or an online version of the presentation with others.

Customization options for design and branding: Visme and Canva allow you to customize the graphics and even make logos and experiment with a variety of fonts. All presentation apps provide ways to edit graphics, resize photos, and even incorporate video into your slideshow. Not every app makes it as easy to edit graphics as Google Slides does, however.

Availability of templates and pre-designed layouts: As with many software programs, templates save time and effort. An app like Microsoft PowerPoint includes pre-designed templates and graphics you can use to enhance a slideshow. Visme is a good example of an app with extensive templates (it has thousands built-in). While Apple Keynote doesn't have as many templates, the ones that are included tend to be more well-designed and trendy.

Pricing and licensing: Most presentation apps offer a monthly subscription to help you get started making a slideshow. In some cases, such as Visme and Slidebean, there’s a basic free version to help you experiment with the app right away. Only Google Slides is entirely free with no extra pricing options. Microsoft also offers a fully licensed version of PowerPoint as opposed to paying for a monthly subscription. The full licensed version costs $159.99.

Customer support and training resources: Microsoft is arguably one of the best companies to choose if you're interested in customer support. Because the product costs a little more – especially if you purchase the full licensed version – it includes extensive technical support. That said, even though Google Slides is free and customer support can be hit or miss, there are so many people using that product that you can usually find answers to questions by doing a simple Google search or asking on public support forums. Also, training videos are more readily available for Google Slides and Microsoft PowerPoint because they're both so popular.

Integration with other software and tools: Integration is key when it comes to presentation software because you want to be able to access important graphics, photos, and videos easily. Canva is perhaps the most integrated option for that reason alone. It's a graphics platform for creating graphics and other design materials, so when you make a presentation, you can easily find what you need.

Security and privacy features: Security and privacy might not be the first concern when it comes to presentation software, since you might be making a simple how-to for employee orientation or a photo slideshow of your vacation. However, for a business creating a new product or for a new startup that has not launched yet, be sure there is a way to protect your presentation from prying eyes.

How We Chose The Best Presentation Software

Our contributor John Brandon poured over specifications and features for the best presentation software around. He’s used presentation apps since the debut of Microsoft PowerPoint and Google Slides. He also consulted with business owners who have started companies and need to communicate about their firms. This includes David Ciccarelli, an entrepreneur who started a company called Voices (an audio and video tech startup) and is the CEO of Lake , a vacation rental business. He also tapped Stephen Gagnon, a web designer with the search engine optimization company Web Scour , who has visual design and branding experience.

WHY SHOULD YOU TRUST US?

John Brandon worked in the corporate world for 10 years, often creating presentations for large teams and at corporate functions. He worked as an Information Design Director at Best Buy Corporation. Since then, he has tested and reviewed thousands of tech products including presentation apps, Wi-Fi routers, televisions, office products, and everything in between. His writing has appeared in Wired magazine, Inc. magazine, FoxNews.com, LAPTOP magazine, and many others.

For anyone who wants to communicate about a new product or service, help new employees with onboarding, or even share photos from a recent vacation, presentation software helps you communicate visually. The basic idea is that you can create a slideshow that augments and enhances what you have to say.

Presentation software is designed to help you communicate a message to an audience, either in a classroom, a conference room, or at home. You create a slideshow, insert graphics, photos, and videos, and then run the slideshow full-screen. When you run the presentation, you can click the mouse button or press the arrow keys on a computer to go back and forth in the slideshow.

Most modern presentation apps charge a monthly fee, usually around $8 or $12 per month. Google Slides is the exception to this rule since it is entirely free. Typically, with higher costs for the pro and premium plans, you gain access to more templates, more graphics, and the ability to export in more file formats, such as HTML or video files. At the high end, Microsoft PowerPoint also offers a fully licensed version, as opposed to a monthly charge.

The classic, tried-and-true presentation apps like Microsoft PowerPoint and Apple Keynote are available as a desktop version you install. In most cases, you will sign up for the app and then download the installation file and run that installer. However, more modern apps like Google Slides and Canva run in a browser window and don't require any installation.

PowerPoint is sometimes included on a Windows laptop. However, if you're looking for a fresh start with new templates and features for animation and video that go beyond PowerPoint and Keynote, you might consider upgrading. Also, presentation tools are now included in apps like Canva and Visme, making them more integrated.

U.S. News 360 Reviews takes an unbiased approach to our recommendations. When you use our links to buy products, we may earn a commission but that in no way affects our editorial independence.

15 Best Presentation Software for 2021

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter

By Bilyana Nikolaeva

in Insights

3 years ago

Viewed 8,283 times

Spread the word about this article:

On average a presentation takes up to 20 minutes and experts say we make an impression within the first 30 seconds. That is why it’s important to “dress” our great product/idea with an equally exciting design. Most often, presentations are cooked up by non-designers, which creates a specific need – for powerful presentation software, which can help communicate a message beautifully, effectively, and to suit any user’s skill level. We hand-picked 15 of the best presentation software for 2021 , which will help you create presentations online, share them, while shining in your best light. In the meanwhile, check out some useful ideas tips to spice up your presentations .

A web-based presentation tool, which means you can access your presentations wherever you are, with an internet connection. It is known for its animations, cartoons, and infographics, which help the user to create more interactive presentations and explainer-style videos.

Example by Focusky

Best Features:  Very interactive; you can create a unique to your story by combining different “frames” (slides); create your own animations within the presentation Price:  Free, but heavily subscription-based Learning curve:  Very intuitive, nicely organized by categories, but it would require some time to learn the animation controls Available for:  Online Perfect for: Marketing and education

To summarize, this presentation tool is best for marketers and education, where the creator can get the most out of the cool animation and cartoons available. In the last years, there is an increased interest in Powtoon and RenderForest and we expect that more and more people will use them in 2021. No surprise – if you look at our article about Graphic Design Trends in 2022 , everything is moving towards animation, cool 3D-s, cartoons, and illustrations – and these are all things that this software can offer for your presentation.

Prezi is an online presentation software, which resembles a mind map. In comparison, PowerPoint offers a linear way of presenting, whereas Prezi allows you to better show relationships between different elements of your presentation, show details, zoom in and zoom out and show an overall view of your topic. Compared to PowerPoint is more interactive, but with fewer functionalities and a choice of templates.

Example by PreziBase

Best Features:  Interactive presentations and interesting transitions, zoom in/out details Price:  The very basic features are free, but most of the interesting ones are paid, starting from $3/month and reaching up to $59/month. They offer a free trial. Learning curve:  it requires learning and going through a lot of menus and functionalities, similar to PowerPoint Available for:  Online / Limited use for iOS and Android (only viewing, not creating and editing) Perfect for: teachers, businesses, more experienced designers, and specific presentations needs, but not recommended for newbies

Prezi is best in showing relationships between different parts of your presentations. There are some challenges in editing, and viewing across devices and its best features are paid for. We recommend it for quick, mind-map-like presentations without the need for ultra-special design.

3. RenderForest Presentation Maker

RenderForest is an online presentation tool, which is famous for its explainer style and whiteboard animations. The presentation templates often offer various motion/video backgrounds, which helps to grab your audience’s attention. Currently, the company is working on releasing its Graphic Design Software, which will allow users to create printables and beautiful designs for social media. This shows that RenderForest’s team knows the market well and does its best to cater to its needs!

Example by Renderforest

Best Features:  Video holders with text on shapes, cool transitions Price:  There is a free version, the paid ones start at $20.34 per user/month Learning curve:  Relatively easy to use, the simple interface helps the user Available for:  Online / iOS / Android Perfect for:  Education and business

Although not one of the cheapest solutions, it allows you to create engaging and interactive presentations with lots of cool animations. That makes RenderForest a great choice for more educational and marketing explainer-type videos/presentations.

4. Mentimeter

Mentimeter is a very interesting online presentation software. It allows your audience to engage with your presentation in real-time and you can create polls, ask questions, which are then displayed to your presentation. The answers from the audience remain anonymous so people are even more encouraged to participate.

Example by Mentimeter

Best Features:  Launch live, interactive polls, surveys, quizzes and create things like word clouds in real-time Price:  It has a free version, but the paid plans offer most of the attractive features – the basic plan costs $9.99 per user/month and the more advanced plan is $24.99 per user/month Learning curve:  Easy to use; might need to explain to a less tech-savvy audience how to connect to your presentation Available for:  Online / Android / iOS Perfect for:  Educators, speakers, business and competitions

An excellent choice for educators, speakers, and businesses who want to engage the audience in real-time and display the results immediately. Clean, simple designs, that help you focus on the content.

5. Libre Office Impress

Libre Office is free presentation software, an open-source alternative to PowerPoint. As you can expect from a free product, it offers only the main features of its “big brother”, but it’s a good solution for people used to Microsoft’s productivity suite. The interface is very similar to PowerPoint, which again makes it comfortable to use for a certain audience. Users who need collaboration on presentations, clean interface, and more creative design solutions should steer away from this free presentation software because it will simply not cover their needs.

Example by Theodoros Bousios

Best Features:  Free, compatible with older versions (Windows XP for example) Price:  Free Learning curve:  It will take some time to go through all the options and to get familiar with the interface; Available for:  Windows / macOS / Linux / Android / iOS. Perfect for:  people who want to use a free product and people with older operation systems

To summarize, Libre is free, compatible with older versions, it can cover your basic needs for a presentation, but the options are too many and available templates too little.

6. Zoho Show

Zoho Show is also an online presentation software, which has a very friendly user interface and great collaboration features. There are many functionalities, which help you create a beautiful design, but require some time and design knowledge to get it right. The premade templates are limited and this presentation software needs an internet connection to be able to edit and present.

Image by Zoho

Best Features:  Live broadcasting a presentation with live chat and commenting Price:  Zoho Show is free for personal use. For business users, Zoho Show is included in the Zoho Docs enterprise pricing packages – €5 or €8 per user/month Learning curve: Available for:  Online / Android / iOS Perfect for:  non-profits, start-ups, personal use, teachers

To summarize, Zoho offers great collaboration features, but you need a connection to edit and present. It is suitable for quick, non-pretentious presentations, where you need some kind of collaboration.

7. ClearSlide Presenter

ClearSlide is a sales engagement platform, including an online presentation tool. Another online tool – SlideRocket, was acquired by ClearSlide and one of the differences is that ClearSlide is more costly and targeted at larger businesses. It’s a great platform for very specific needs – collaborating between sales and marketing teams, to achieve the company’s goals. It’s clear even by the interface:

Image by ClearSlide

Best Features: Analytics for costumers’ engagement, video conferencing, screen sharing Price:  They offer a free trial and you can see more about the payment plans here. Learning curve:  Clear and simple interface, but it requires some time to get used to the tools Available for:  Online Perfect for: Sales/business, managers (for coaching); not suitable for newbies, teachers, students

To summarize, ClearSide is perfect for presenting sales pitch , graphics, collaborate in larger teams. It is somehow restrictive for a non-designer because the templates are specific.

8. Piktochart

Piktochart allows you to make infographics, presentations, and printables quickly. Primarily known for its easy customizable infographics, Piktochart also has simple presentation templates and the company is constantly trying to update its library.

Example by Piktochart Knowledge Base

Best Features:  Turning data-heavy content into simple visuals; nice transitions between slides Price:  There is a free version and a paid one, starting at $29 per user/month. They offer a free trial. Learning curve:  It requires time to get used to the options available and to navigate through Available for:  Online Perfect for:  Designers, teachers; it does not offer collaboration options, which might be needed by teams, students, etc.

Compared to other online presentation software is a bit costly and we could still ask a bit more from the presentation templates. We’d recommend it to someone who often uses infographics and wants to use a single platform to combine the infographics with a presentation. But why not check our free infographics as well?

Slides is online presentation software, initially aimed at developers and covering their presentation needs. Thus said, it does not offer offline editing, but you can present offline, after exporting your presentation.

Best Features:  It allows you to use your phone as a remote control; Live Present Mode allows you to control what your audience sees; drop in code, iframes, and SVGs with ease. Price:  Free, with paid plans starting at $7.00/month and $14-$18/month for pro and team packages. They offer a free trial. Learning curve:  friendly interface, but too many functions and options, which might overwhelm the average user and beginner Available for: Online Perfect for:  developers, designers, a little bit too specific for newbies

To summarize, it’s a very cool tool, giving you complete design freedom, but that is also why we do not recommend it to teachers, non-designers, or marketers. Developers and design gurus will love it.

Canva is a web-based solution that started with a mission – to make beautiful designed content available to everyone. The whole platform is organized so that a person without any prior design knowledge can easily create graphs, images, and presentations to impress. Although it is not the best tool for data visualization, it scores high in any other category. Needless to say, it has become a popular choice amongst non-designers.

Image by Iconfinder

Best Features:  Plenty of beautiful templates to choose from and Canva school has plenty of tutorials and tips for free. It offers more free functionalities compared to other competitors. Price:  Free, the offer different subscription plans, starting at $9.95 per user/month Learning curve:  Very easy to use, most of the actions can be performed by drag-and-drop Available for:  Online / iOS / Android Perfect for:  newbies, marketers (who need a unified look across all their social media), non-profits, and teachers

Canva is becoming one of the most popular tools amongst non-designers for creating beautiful unified content. You can create entire presentations, flyers, and other materials with a single drag and drop.

11. Slidebean

Slidebean is the go-to online presentation software for last-minute projects, that look original and professional. Slidebean offers clean and easy-to-use templates and keeps track of your audience’s engagement.

Source Slidebean

Best Features:  It allows you to arrange your content with the help of AI, which saves time creating a beautiful layout. You just pick a template, upload content, and let the AI offer you a nice layout. Premade animations, effects, and alignments are automatically applied to your content and create a cohesive look. Price:  Free, paid versions starting from $8/month Learning curve:  very easy to use since everything is made to fit the premade templates Available for:  Windows / Mac / Android / iOS Perfect for:  financial, academic, pitch, marketing, sales; everything quick with a clear structure

To summarize, if you are in a hurry, Slidebean will offer several layouts for your slides and speed up the process of creation. The platform targets primarily sales, marketing, and financial fields, and the available templates reflect that.

12. Google Slides

Google Slides is part of the G Suite business application. Its popularity has increased in the last years since it’s a web-based platform, allowing you to store, edit, and share your presentation, without the need of installing presentation software on your computer. All you need is a Google account and you are good to go.

Image by G Suite Updates blog

Best Features:  It’s free for personal use, and offers great paid features for business – for example, seamless collaboration and commenting on a presentation, converting other presentations to Google Slides. Some other great features are the wide variety of fonts available (GoogleFonts, not need installing), easy embedding, plus it’s super intuitive and easy to use! Price:   It’s free for individual use. For business use, the price starts at $5/user/month and plans of $10 and $25/user/month, for unlimited cloud storage and extra features Learning curve:  Simple interface, but it will require some time to pick up. Similar to PowerPoint, only a bit lighter. Available for:  Windows / Mac / Online Perfect for:  businesses, freelancers, who need a user-friendly app with elementary features; great for collaborating teams, not so perfect for complex designs and tools, required by big enterprises

Perfect for personal use, well synchronized across different devices, similar to PowerPoint. Maybe you are a teacher and you like GoogleSlides because it is free and easy to use? Well, we’ve gathered some awesome FREE GoogleSlides and PowerPoint templates , specially made for education needs.

If you need something along the lines of PowerPoint but need the option for collaboration – a paid plan for GoogleSlides is your go-to choice.

13. Keynote

Keynote is an Apple product, very similar to Google Slides. All you need to do is create an iCloud account (similar to a Google account) and start using Keynote from there. Running Keynote on Windows also requires an internet connection and a modern browser. The latest version can also import and export PowerPoint formats if needed. All this sends Keynote higher in the list regarding the accessibility and shareability of this presentation software.

Image by Envato tuts+

Best Features:  Simplicity of design, great drag and drop functions, polished transitions and animations, easy image editing/cropping; works great with multimedia; design templates with better aesthetic than an average slide deck; Price:  Free for macOS and iOS Learning curve:  Pretty easy to use for Mac users, a bit of learning curve for users, having experience with other software. Available for:  Mac / Windows / Online Perfect for:  businesses, marketers, people with not much of a design experience

Bottom line, if you are a Mac user, you love the sleek design and you are looking for cool aesthetics – Keynote is simple to use and free, why not use it?

14. Adobe Spark

Adobe Spark is a web and mobile-based media creation application, which helps you create social graphics, short videos, and web pages. What is immediately noticeable is the clean, crisp, simple, and modern designs, which focus you on the content. If you are looking for a funky, ornate design – Adobe Spark is not the right pick for you.

Example by Cikeys

Best Features:  Beautiful templates, user-friendly interface, step-by-step creation, you can add audio to your slides (narrating) Price:  There is a free version, the paid on starts at $9.79. The best templates, as with the competitors, are paid. They do not offer a free trial. Learning curve:  Easy to use Available for:  Online / iOS / Android Perfect for:  quick presentations, teachers, basic presentations without jamming them with too much cool stuff.

Adobe Spark eliminates the cluster of design options and leads you step-by-step in creating elegant, simple presentations. Ideal for basic presentations, not the best for sales and marketing.

15. PowerPoint

PowerPoint certainly is a “classic” – it’s has been the most popular tool for creating presentations so far. What first started as a component of the Microsoft Office suite, now has improved shareability and accessibility. It can be used on the web (as part of Office on the web), works with Android, and iOS, and there is a Mobile app, as well as presentation software for mac.

Example by Abris DC

Best Features:  Many people are familiar with the software, a wide variety of templates; improved accessibility across platforms; extensive tools and options Price: If you want to enjoy the full features of PowerPoint, you’ll need to subscribe to Microsoft 365 – they have payment plans for personal or business use. The price for personal use starts at $5.99/month or $59.99/year, and business plans start at $12.50 per user/month with an annual commitment. You can find more information here . The mobile applications are completely free to use, of course with some limitations. You can compare the available features across different platforms  here. Learning curve: Due to the variety of options and the complexity of the menus, it might take some time to master all of its features. Something that could take a lot of time is editing the text, arranging the visuals, and picking the right transitions – overall, is time-consuming. Still, the interface remained easy to navigate over time and if you trust your design sense, you can achieve satisfying results. Available for: Windows / Mac / Online Perfect for: business, medical, accounting and students; creating concise presentations; but not so suitable for teachers, educators, start-ups and marketers who want to create more interactive and story-based presentations.

To this date, PowerPoint is keeping the lead as the most popular tool for creating presentations. Some of the downsides are that sometimes it can be time-consuming to come up with a good design and PP doesn’t offer collaboration tools and compared to other platforms. But we have a solution for at least one of your problems – we’ve selected 31 Modern PowerPoint templates to set the right tone for your presentation. 

We made a quick summary for you…

Ok, not that we’ve looked at the 15 best presentation software for 2021, we decided to go one step further and compare them by price and popularity. Let’s have a look first at the new-comers:

As you can see, the leaders from the uprising platforms are Canva and Mentimeter, with relatively low prices and with huge success amongst users . Powtoon, Piktochart, and Renderforest are a bit costly , but they are popular since they offer a lot of animation and interactive elements. Hey, but maybe some of the other tools are right for you? We encourage you to go on their websites, contact their support team, and see what they have to offer.

Then, let’s see how the veterans are ranking:

It’s no surprise that PowerPoint and Google Slides are at the top – people are used to their products, have familiar interfaces, and offer a lot of functionalities at a good price. Although, for quick, unpretentious results, their competitors are a very attractive solution.

Final words

We can conclude that there are many useful tools to help you create beautiful presentations. Some of them are well-known and have been here for a while, while others are uprising… No matter the case, we notice a trend for presentation tools catering not only to the designers’ needs but also to the newbies, marketers, and teachers. That way, enabling everyone to create stunning presentations in no time and share them easily.

We hope this presentation software list shed some light on different options out there and that we helped you evaluate quickly what would work for your situation best.

You may also be interested in these related articles:

• 12 PowerPoint Presentation Tips To Dramatically Boost Your Efficiency
• 35 Free Google Slides Infographic Templates to Grab Now
• 23 Online Collaboration Tools for Your Remote Team

Add some character to your visuals

Cartoon Characters, Design Bundles, Illustrations, Backgrounds and more...

Like us on Facebook

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to know what’s new in the world of graphic design and illustrations.

• [email protected]

Browse High Quality Vector Graphics

E.g.: businessman, lion, girl…

Related Articles

16 cool apps for instagram to change your ‘gram game for the better, 30 inspiring ux design examples for your next vision in 2022, character clipart: a collection for every taste & every project, 10 cartoon character design secrets by graphicmama, graphic design trends in 2021 that will cause revolution, take a look at graphicmama’s infographic templates collection. over 500 premade templates for your presentations:, enjoyed this article.

Don’t forget to share!

• Comments (0)

Bilyana Nikolaeva

Bilyana is an inspiring content writer and illustrator at GraphicMama with years of experience in art and design. When she’s not busy writing for the blog, you will usually see her working hard on new illustrations and graphic resources.

Thousands of vector graphics for your projects.

Take a look at GraphicMama's Infographic Templates Collection. Over 500 premade templates for your presentations:

Hey you made it all the way to the bottom.

Here are some other articles we think you may like:

How to Use Pinterest: Tips & Ideas for the Pinner

by Iveta Pavlova

PowerPoint Version History and Evolution To This Day [2022]

by Nikolay Kaloyanov

The Ultimate Guide to Online Teaching in 2022

by Boril Obreshkov

Looking for Design Bundles or Cartoon Characters?

A source of high-quality vector graphics offering a huge variety of premade character designs, graphic design bundles, Adobe Character Animator puppets, and more.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Does a presentation’s medium affect its message? PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations

Samuel t. moulton.

1 Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America

2 Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America

Selen Türkay

Stephen m. kosslyn.

3 Minerva Schools at the Keck Graduate Institute, San Francisco, California, United States of America

• Conceptualization: SMK ST STM.
• Data curation: ST STM.
• Formal analysis: ST STM.
• Funding acquisition: SMK ST STM.
• Investigation: ST.
• Methodology: SMK ST STM.
• Project administration: ST STM.
• Resources: ST STM.
• Software: ST STM.
• Supervision: SMK ST STM.
• Validation: SMK ST STM.
• Visualization: STM.
• Writing – original draft: STM.
• Writing – review & editing: SMK ST STM.

Associated Data

All data files are available from the Open Science Framework https://osf.io/fgf7c/ .

Despite the prevalence of PowerPoint in professional and educational presentations, surprisingly little is known about how effective such presentations are. All else being equal, are PowerPoint presentations better than purely oral presentations or those that use alternative software tools? To address this question we recreated a real-world business scenario in which individuals presented to a corporate board. Participants (playing the role of the presenter) were randomly assigned to create PowerPoint, Prezi, or oral presentations, and then actually delivered the presentation live to other participants (playing the role of corporate executives). Across two experiments and on a variety of dimensions, participants evaluated PowerPoint presentations comparably to oral presentations, but evaluated Prezi presentations more favorably than both PowerPoint and oral presentations. There was some evidence that participants who viewed different types of presentations came to different conclusions about the business scenario, but no evidence that they remembered or comprehended the scenario differently. We conclude that the observed effects of presentation format are not merely the result of novelty, bias, experimenter-, or software-specific characteristics, but instead reveal a communication preference for using the panning-and-zooming animations that characterize Prezi presentations.

Introduction

How do the characteristics of a communication medium affect its messages? This question has been the subject of much philosophical and empirical inquiry, with some (e.g., [ 1 ]) claiming that the medium determines the message (“the medium is the message”), others (e.g., [ 2 ]) claiming that characteristics of a medium affect the message, and others claiming that the medium and message are separable (e.g.,[ 3 , 4 ]). As psychologists, we ask: What mental mechanisms underlie effective communication and how can presenters leverage these mechanisms to communicate better? These questions—at the intersection of psychology and communication practice—motivate this research.

That said, the relative efficacy of different communication media or technologies informs the primary questions of interest. If we can demonstrate that oral presentations are less or more effective than those that rely on presentation software—or that presenters who use one type of presentation software tend to be more effective than those who use another—then we advance our psychological and practical understanding of effective communication. Thus, in the tradition of use-inspired basic research [ 5 ]—and as a means to an end, rather than an end unto itself—we compare the effectiveness of three commonly-used formats for communication: oral, PowerPoint, and Prezi presentations.

We focused on presentations because they populate our academic, professional, and even personal lives in the form of public speeches, academic lectures, webinars, class presentations, wedding toasts, courtroom arguments, sermons, product demonstrations, and business presentations [ 6 – 8 ], and because basic questions remain about how to present effectively. Should we present with or without presentation software? If we should present with software, which software? We examined PowerPoint and Prezi because they are popular and psychologically interesting alternatives: Whereas PowerPoint’s linear slide format might reduce cognitive load, focus attention, and promote logical analysis, Prezi’s map-like canvas format and heavy reliance on animation (see the Background section and https://prezi.com for examples) might facilitate visuospatial processing, conceptual understanding, and narrative storytelling.

To inform the present research, we explore the methodological challenges of media research and review past research on presentation formats.

Methodological challenges of media research

To research the efficacy of different communication formats fairly and accurately, one must overcome two stubborn methodological challenges. First, because correlation is not causation and the variables that underlie media usage are heavily confounded, such research requires true experimentation. To study whether a blended learning “flipped classroom” is a more effective instructional medium than traditional lecturing, for example, researchers gain little insight by comparing outcomes for students who enroll in one type of course versus the other. To control for audience (in this case, student) self-selection effects, researchers need to 1) randomly assign audience members to different communication conditions (in this case, pedagogies) or 2) manipulate format within participants. Moreover, the same methodological controls need to be applied to presenters (in this case, instructors). Instructors who choose to teach with emerging, innovative methods probably differ in numerous other respects (e.g., motivation) from those who teach with more traditional methods. If students assigned randomly to a flipped classroom format perform better than those assigned randomly to a traditional classroom format, we risk drawing inferences about confounds instead of causes unless instructors are also assigned randomly to instructional media. To make strong, accurate inferences, therefore, researchers interested in communication must control for audience and presenter self-selection effects. Such control introduces new complexities; when randomly assigning presenters to formats, for example, one must ensure that all presenters receive sufficient training in the relevant format. Moreover, such control is often cumbersome, sometimes impractical, and occasionally unethical (e.g., randomly assigning students in actual courses to hypothetically worse instructional conditions). But there are no adequate methodological substitutes for proper experimental control.

A second thorny methodological challenge inherent in conducting media research concerns how to draw general inferences about formats instead of specific inferences about exemplars of those formats. For example, if one advertising expert is assigned randomly to design a print ad and another expert a television ad—and a hundred consumers are assigned randomly to view the television or print ad—can we actually infer anything about print versus television ads in general when the two groups of consumers behave differently? Arguably not, because such a finding is just as easily explained by other (confounding) differences between the ads or their creators (e.g., ratio of print to graphics, which sorts of people—if any—are shown, and so forth). In other words, even with proper random assignment, researchers who intend to study different forms of communication risk merely studying different instances of communication. Statistically speaking, one should assume a random not fixed effect of the communication objects of interest (e.g., presentations, lectures, advertisements). To overcome this challenge and draw generalizable inferences, one must (at the very least) sample a sufficiently large set of examples within each medium.

Research on presentation software

Methodological shortcomings.

Considerable research has been conducted on how different presentation formats (particularly PowerPoint) convey information (for review, see [ 9 ]). However, much of this research is anecdotal or based on case studies. For example, Tufte [ 10 ] claims that PowerPoint’s default settings lead presenters to create bulleted lists and vacuous graphs that abbreviate arguments and fragment thought. And Kjeldsen [ 11 ] used Al Gore’s TED talk on climate change as a positive example of how visuals can be used to effectively convey evidence and enhance verbal communication.

Research that goes beyond mere anecdote or case study is plagued by the aforementioned methodological shortcomings: failure to control for audience self-selection effects (71% of studies), failure to control for presenter self-selection effects (100% of studies), and a problematic assumption of fixed effects across content and presenters (91% of studies). As is evident in Table 1 , no studies overcame two of these shortcomings, let alone all three. For example, in one of the most heavily-cited publications on this topic Szabo and Hasting [ 12 ] investigated the efficacy of PowerPoint in undergraduate education. In the first study, they examined whether students who received lectures with PowerPoint performed better on a test than students who received traditional lectures. Students were not assigned randomly to lecture conditions, however; rather, the comparison was across time, between two cohorts of students enrolled in different iterations of the same course. Any observed outcome difference could have been caused by student or instructor variables (e.g., preparedness), not lecture format. The fact that no such differences were found does not obviate this concern: Such differences may in fact have been present, but were overshadowed by confounding characteristics of students or instructors. In the second study, the authors varied presentation format within the same cohort of students, but confounded format with order, time, content, and performance measure: student performance was compared between lectures on different days, on different topics, and using different tests. As the authors themselves note, the observed differences may have had nothing to do with PowerPoint. In the third study, they counterbalanced lecture order and content; some students received a PowerPoint lecture first and others a traditional lecture first, and the same topics were presented in both formats. However, students were assigned to conditions based on their course enrollment, not randomly, but more importantly the study included only four presentations, all by one presenter. Any advantages of the two PowerPoint lectures (none were found) might have been particular to those instances or that presenter and not representative of the format more generally.

Note: "PPT Only" studies investigated whether participants had positive, neutral, or negative perceptions of PowerPoint and did not explicitly contrast PowerPoint with other presentation formats. All studies were coded by two authors (STM and ST), with any discrepancies (4%) resolved by discussion. To determine whether researchers studied their own presentations or students, we sometimes made inferences based on researchers' published academic affiliations, appointments, and disciplines, as well as other online information (e.g., curricula vitae).

Most studies—even those that control experimentally for audience self-selection—relied on only a single self-selected presenter, and some relied on only one presentation per format. In one study ([ 13 ]: Experiment 1), for example, one of the authors varied the format of his lecture instruction randomly across the semester, using transparences or PowerPoint slides. In another study [ 14 ], students who were enrolled in one of the authors’ courses were assigned randomly to a PowerPoint or Prezi e-lecture that contained identical audio narration and written text. In a third study [ 15 ], one of the researchers gave the same lecture over the course of the year to rotating medical students, using PowerPoint on odd months and overhead slides on even months. What reason is there to think that we can make general claims about presentation format based on studies of single lectures or single presenters? That is, how can we reasonably assume fixed as opposed to random effects? If the use of presentation software does meaningfully influence student learning or experience, surely that effect is not constant across all presenters or presentations—some instructors use it more effectively than others, and within any format some presentations are more effective than others (see [ 16 ]). And how can we assume that presenters who select both the content and format of their presentations are not designing them in ways that favor one format over another?

Research on the efficacy of presentation software has numerous other flaws, most notably the failure to control for experimenter effects or demand characteristics. In 82% of studies we identified, for example, the researchers investigated their own instruction and studied their own students. It is difficult to imagine that one would make these instructional and research efforts (e.g., creating new course material, conducting a field experiment) without a strong belief in the efficacy of one format over the other, and it is plausible (if not likely) that such beliefs would influence students or confound instructional format with instructional effort and enthusiasm.

Another common issue is the confounding of lecture format with access to study materials—in studies that contrast PowerPoint with traditional lecturing (e.g., [ 17 – 19 ]), students in the PowerPoint condition (but not the control condition) sometimes have access to PowerPoint slides as study material. This access could bias student motivation, behavior (e.g., attendance), course satisfaction, and performance (see [ 20 ]).

PowerPoint: Performance, perception, and persuasion

Despite their methodological shortcomings, what are the findings of this research literature? The majority of studies examined the use of PowerPoint in higher education and measured both objective and subjective outcomes (see Table 1 ). They typically involved students enrolled in one or more of the researchers’ courses, and contrasted the efficacy of lectures (or whole lecture courses) that used PowerPoint with those that used a more traditional technology (e.g., blackboards, overhead projectors). In terms of student performance, their findings were notably mixed: Of the 28 studies we identified, 17 found no effect of PowerPoint lectures relative to traditional lectures ([ 12 ]: Experiments 1,3; [ 13 , 15 , 21 – 33 ]), 9 found a performance benefit of PowerPoint over traditional instruction ([ 12 ]: Experiment 2; [ 17 – 19 , 34 – 38 ]), and 2 found a performance benefit of traditional over PowerPoint instruction [ 39 , 40 ].

There is near consensus in the literature, however, when it comes student perception: Of the 26 studies we identified, 21 found that students preferred PowerPoint over traditional instruction ([ 12 ]: Experiment 1; [ 13 , 17 – 19 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 31 – 33 , 35 , 39 , 41 – 45 ]), 2 found that students preferred traditional over PowerPoint instruction [ 40 , 46 ], and 3 other studies found no preference for one or the other formats [ 15 , 22 , 37 ]. As one example, Tang and Austin [ 45 ] surveyed 215 undergraduates in business courses about their general perceptions of different lecture formats; on measures of enjoyment, learning, motivation, and career relevance, they found that students rated lectures with PowerPoint slides more favorably than lectures with overheads or without visual aids. An additional 7 studies did not contrast student perceptions of PowerPoint with another technology—they simply surveyed students about PowerPoint; these studies all found that students had, on average, favorable impressions of PowerPoint-based instruction [ 36 , 47 – 52 ].

In addition to these studies of how presentation software impacts student performance and perception, two studies examined PowerPoint‘s impact on audience persuasion. Guadagno, Sundie, Hardison, and Cialdini [ 53 ] argue that we heuristically use a presentation’s format to evaluate its content, particularly when we lack the expertise to evaluate the content on its merits. To test this hypothesis, they presented undergraduates with key statistics about a university football recruit and asked them to evaluate the recruit’s career prospects. The same statistics were presented in one of three formats: a written summary, a graphical summary via printed-out PowerPoint slides, or a graphical summary via animated PowerPoint slides (self-advanced by the participant). Participants shown the computer-based PowerPoint presentation tended to rate the recruit more positively than other participants, and there was some evidence that this effect was more pronounced for football novices than for experts. The findings of this study suggest that some presentation formats may be more persuasive than others, perhaps because audience members conflate a sophisticated medium with a sophisticated message.

In the second study to examine the impact of PowerPoint on persuasion, Park and Feigenson [ 54 ] examined the impact of video-recorded presentations on mock juror decision-making. Participants were more persuaded by attorneys on either side of a liability case when the attorney used PowerPoint slides as opposed to merely oral argument. They also remembered more details from PowerPoint than oral presentations, and evaluated both attorneys as more persuasive, competent, credible, and prepared when they presented with PowerPoint. Based on mediation analyses, the researchers argue that the decision-making benefit of PowerPoint results from both deliberative and heuristic processing (“slow” and “fast” thinking, respectively, see [ 55 ]).

Both of these studies, however, share the methodological limitations of the educational research on PowerPoint. The first study [ 53 ] used only one PowerPoint presentation, and the second [ 54 ] used only two. The presentations used were not selected at random from a larger stimulus pool but instead were created by researchers who hypothesized that PowerPoint would enhance presentations. But even if the presentations had been sampled randomly, the sample is too small to allow one to generalize to a broader population. In studying performance, perception, or persuasion, one cannot reasonably assume that all presentation effects are equal.

Prezi: A zoomable user interface

Released in 2009, Prezi has received generally favorable reviews by researchers, educators, and professional critics [ 56 – 60 ]. With a purported 75 million users worldwide, it is increasingly popular but still an order of magnitude less so than PowerPoint (with as many as one billion users; [ 61 ]). Like PowerPoint and other slideware, Prezi allows users to arrange images, graphics, text, audio, video and animations, and to present them alongside aural narration to an in-person or remote audience. In contrast to PowerPoint and other slideware in which users create presentations as a deck of slides, Prezi users create presentations on a single visuospatial canvas. In this regard, Prezi is much like a blackboard and chalk. But unlike a physical blackboard, the Prezi canvas is infinite (cf. [ 62 ]) and zoomable: in designing presentations, users can infinitely expand the size of their canvas and can zoom in or out. When presenting, users define paths to navigate their audience through the map-like presentation, zooming and panning from a fixed-angle overhead view.

Like Google Maps or modern touchscreens, Prezi is an example of what scholars of human-computer interaction label a zoomable user interface (ZUI). These interfaces are defined by two features: They present information in a theoretically infinite two-dimensional space (i.e., an infinite canvas) and they enable users to animate this virtual space through panning and zooming. Some of the original ZUIs were used to visualize history, navigate file systems, browse images, and—in the Prezi predecessor CounterPoint—create presentations [ 63 , 64 ].

As communication and visualization tools, ZUIs in general and Prezi in particular are interesting psychologically for several reasons. First, they may take advantage of our mental and neural architecture, specifically the fact that we process information through dissociable visual and spatial systems. Whereas the so-called “ventral” visual system in the brain processes information such as shape and color, the “dorsal” spatial system processes information such as location and distance [ 65 – 68 ]. When working in concert, these systems result in vastly better memory and comprehension than when they work in isolation. For example, in the classic “method of loci” individuals visualize objects in specific locations; when later trying to recall the objects, they visualize navigating through the space, “seeing” each object in turn. This method typically doubles retention, compared to other ways of trying to memorize objects [ 69 , 70 ]. Similarly, in research on note-taking, students learned more when they used spatial methods than when they used linear methods (e.g., [ 71 ]). Mayer’s multimedia learning principles and evidence in their favor also highlight the importance of spatial contiguity [ 72 ].

Thus, by encouraging users to visualize and process information spatially, ZUIs such as Prezi may confer an advantage over traditional tools such as PowerPoint that do not encourage such visuospatial integration. As Good and Bederson [ 64 ] write: “Because they employ a metaphor based on physical space and navigation, ZUIs offer an additional avenue for exploring the utilization of human spatial abilities during a presentation.”

Furthermore, ZUIs may encourage a particularly efficacious type of spatial processing, namely graphical processing. In graphical processing, digital objects (or groups of objects) are not just arranged in space, they are arranged or connected in a way makes their interrelationships explicit. Randomly placing animal stickers on a blank page, for example, engages mere spatial processing; drawing connecting lines between animals of the same genus or arranging the animals into a phylogenetic tree, however, engages graphical processing. Because ZUIs force users to “see the big picture,” they may prompt deeper processing than software that segments content into separate spatial canvases. By facilitating such processing, ZUIs may leverage the same learning benefits of concept maps and other graphical organizers, which have been studied extensively. For example, in their meta-analysis of the use of concept maps in education, Nesbit and Adesope [ 73 ] found that these graphical representations (especially when animated) were more effective than texts, lists, and outlines. By requiring one to organize the whole presentation on a single canvas instead of a slide deck, therefore, Prezi may prompt presenters (and their audiences) to connect component ideas with each other, contextualize them in a larger narrative, and remember, understand, and appreciate this larger narrative. Slideware, on the other hand, may do just the opposite:

PowerPoint favours information that can be displayed on a single projected 4:3 rectangle. Knowledge that requires more space is disadvantaged … How to include a story on a slide? Distributing the associated text over several slides literally breaks it into fragments, disturbing its natural cohesion and thus coherence … PowerPoint renders obsolete some complex narrative and data forms in favour of those that are easily abbreviated or otherwise lend themselves to display on a series of slides [ 74 ] (p399)

Of course these arguments are speculative, and one can also speculate on the psychological costs of ZUI or benefits of standard slideware. Perhaps PowerPoint does confer some of same spatial processing benefits of Prezi—after all, slides are spatial canvases, and they must be arranged to form a narrative—but in a way that better manages the limited attentional resources of the presenter or audience. Our point here is simply that Prezi, as a ZUI presentation tool, offers a psychologically interesting alternative to standard deck-based slideware, with a range of possible advantages that could be explored empirically to discover the psychological mechanisms of effective communication.

Like the PowerPoint literature, most of the published literature on Prezi is limited to observational reports or case studies. Brock and Brodahl [ 75 ] evaluated Prezi favorably based on their review and students’ ratings of course presentations. Conboy, Fletcher, Russell, and Wilson [ 76 ] interviewed 6 undergraduates and 3 staff members about their experiences with Prezi in lecture instruction and reported generally positive experiences. Masood and Othman [ 77 ] measured the eye movements and subjective judgments of ten participants who viewed a single Prezi presentation; participants attended to the presentation’s text more than to its other components (e.g., images, headings), and favorably judged the presentation. Ballentine [ 78 ] assigned students to use Prezi to design text adventure games and reported benefits of using the medium. Two other studies [ 79 , 80 ] surveyed college students about their course experiences with Prezi, and both reported similarly positive perceptions.

All of these studies, however, suffer from major demand characteristics, due to the fact that the researchers observed or asked leading questions of their own students about their own instruction (e.g., “Do you find lectures delivered with Prezi more engaging then[sic] other lectures?”, from [ 79 ]). Moreover, all suffer from the methodological limitations discussed earlier.

Other literature that addresses Prezi is purely theoretical and speculative: In discussing the pedagogical implications of various presentation software, Harris [ 81 ] mostly just describes Prezi’s features, but does suggest that some of these features provide useful visual metaphors (e.g., zooming in to demonstrate otherwise hidden realities). Bean [ 82 ] offers a particularly compelling analysis of PowerPoint and Prezi’s histories, user interfaces, and visual metaphors, and argues that Prezi is the optimal tool for presenting certain types of information (e.g., wireflow diagrams).

The experimental literature on Prezi is limited to three published studies. Castelyn, Mottart and Valcke [ 14 ] investigated whether a Prezi e-lecture with graphic organizers (e.g., concepts maps) was more effective than a PowerPoint e-lecture without graphic organizers. Claiming that Prezi encourages the use of graphic organizers, they purposefully confounded the type of presentation software with the presence of graphic organizers. Undergraduates randomly assigned to the different e-lectures did not differ in their knowledge or self-efficacy gains, but did prefer the graphically-organized Prezi lecture over the PowerPoint control lecture. In a follow-up study [ 83 ], the same researchers assigned undergraduates to create Prezi presentations that did or did not use graphic organizers, and found no effects of this manipulation on students’ self-reported motivation or self-efficacy. Chou, Chang, and Lu [ 24 ] compared the effects of Prezi, PowerPoint and traditional blackboard instruction on 5 th graders’ learning of geography. Whereas the Prezi group performed better than the control group (which received blackboard instruction) in formative quizzes and a summative test, the PowerPoint group did not; however, on a delayed summative test, both Prezi and PowerPoint students performed better than those in the control group. In direct comparisons of PowerPoint and Prezi, there were no differences in any of the learning measures. Taken together, the studies are not just limited in number: They present uncompelling findings and suffer from the same methodological shortcomings of the PowerPoint research.

The current study

In short, the extant literature does not clarify whether presenters should present with or without visual aids—and, if the latter, whether they should use standard deck-based slideware such as PowerPoint or a ZUI such as Prezi. One of the reasons why these basic questions remain unanswered is the methodological challenges inherent in comparing different presentation formats. We designed the current study to overcome these challenges.

To control for individual differences among presenters, we randomly assigned presenters to different presentation conditions. To control for individual differences among audience members, we used a counterbalanced, within-participants design for the first experiment, and between-participants random assignment in the second experiment. And to draw general inferences about the impact of presentation format—instead of specific inferences about particular presenters or presentations—we sampled from a large number of presentations, each created by a different presenter. Our methods have their own challenges, such as recruiting participants sufficiently trained in all presentation methods, allowing presenters adequate preparation time and context, approximating the psychological conditions of real-world presentations, and measuring the “signal” of presentation format among the added “noise” of so many presenters and presentations. In addition, the studies had to be double-blind: Neither presenters nor audience members could be aware of any hypotheses, and had to be free from any sorts of confirmation bias conveyed by the investigators.

To focus on presentations as a form of presenter-audience communication and limit the number of confounded variables, we purposefully controlled for other possible impacts of presentation software on professional practices or outcomes, including 1) the use of presentation artifacts (e.g., PowerPoint files, printed-out slides, online Prezis), and 2) facilitated collaboration among presentation designers. Unlike other research (e.g., [ 32 , 33 ]) we did allow for the possibility that presentation format not only affects how audiences perceive presentations, but also how presenters design or deliver them (e.g., by increasing their conceptual understanding of the topic, or decreasing their cognitive load during live narration; cf. [ 84 ]). In other words, presentation technologies might affect the cognition of both the audience and the presenter, so we designed the present studies to accommodate both sets of mechanisms.

To maximize the real-world relevance of this research, we relied on multimedia case materials from Harvard Business School [ 85 ]; these materials recreate the actual professional circumstances in which presentations are typically used. Because presentations are designed commonly both to inform and convince audiences, we examine outcome measures of learning as well as persuasion. And to minimize demand characteristics, we avoided the typical flaws of existing research (e.g., researcher-designed presentations, the researchers’ students as research participants) and adopted several countermeasures (e.g., recruitment language and participant instructions that obscured the research hypotheses, between-participant manipulation).

We adopted a two-phased approach in this research. In the first phase, participants with sufficient experience in oral, PowerPoint, and Prezi presentation formats were randomly assigned to create a presentation in one of those formats. We provided the necessary context, instruction, and time to create a short but realistic presentation. Participants then presented live to an actual audience, who judged each presentation’s efficacy. In the second phase, recorded versions of these presentations were presented to a larger online audience, affording us greater statistical power and allowing us to measure the impact of presentation format on decision-making and learning.

Experiment 1

Participants.

We recruited presenter participants via online postings (on Craigslist, the Harvard Psychology Study Pool, the Harvard Decision Science Lab Study Pool), email solicitations to the local Prezi community, and campus flyers. To create the fairest comparison between PowerPoint and Prezi, we recruited individuals who “have expertise in using both PowerPoint and Prezi presentation software.” Interested individuals were directed to a prescreening survey in which they reported their experience with and preference for giving different types of presentations. Only individuals who reported that they were “not at all experienced” with PowerPoint, Prezi or giving oral presentations were excluded from research participation. Out of the 681 respondents who completed the prescreening survey, 456 of them were eligible and invited to sign up for an available timeslot. Out of this group, 146 individuals—105 from the Harvard study pools, 33 from Craigslist, and 8 from the Prezi community—participated as presenters in the study and were compensated $40 for approximately two hours of their time. There were no significant differences between the three presentation groups on any demographics variables.

We also recruited 153 audience participants from the Harvard Decision Science Lab Study Pool and Craigslist using the following announcement:

Do you use Skype? Does your computer have a large screen (13 inches or larger)? If so, you may be eligible to participate in a 45 minute long online study. In this study, you will watch professional presentations over Skype from home on your personal computer.

Anyone who responded to the recruitment notice was eligible, provided that they were available during one of the prescheduled testing sessions. Audience participants were compensated $10 for approximately 45 minutes of their time. Table 2 presents demographic information for the presenter and audience participants. This study was approved by the Harvard Committee on the Use of Human Subjects (Study #IRB14-1427), and all participants in both experiments provided written consent.

Note: Unless otherwise noted, numbers refer to the number of participants in each category. Two presenter participants did not report their educational level, and four did not report their occupation. Demographic data from one audience participant is missing due to a coding error.

Presenter procedure

Presenter participants completed a survey remotely before attending the in-person, group sessions with other participants. In the online pre-survey, presenters first answered basic demographic questions (gender, age, education level, English fluency, and occupation). Next, they answered questions about their prior experience with, opinions about, and understanding of the different presentation formats (oral, Prezi, and PowerPoint). This section was prefaced with the following note:

A note on language: When we use the term "presentation," we mean a formal, planned, and oral presentation of any duration, including a public speech, an academic lecture, a webinar, a class presentation, a wedding toast, a sermon, a product demonstration, a business presentation, and so on. Examples of things we do NOT mean are: a theatrical performance, an impromptu toast at dinner, and any presentation with no audience. When we say PowerPoint presentations, we mean presentations that were made using Microsoft PowerPoint, not other software such as Apple's Keynote. When we say Prezi presentations, we mean presentations that were made using Prezi presentation software. Also, when we refer to "oral presentation", we mean a presentation that is only spoken and does not include any visual aids or the use of presentation software.

Participants were asked the following questions for each type of presentation:

• How experienced are you at making the following types of presentations? [5-level rating]
• When you give a presentation, how effective are the following types of presentations for you? [5-level rating, with “not applicable” option]
• When somebody else gives a presentation, how effective are the following types of presentations for you? [5-level rating, with “not applicable” option]
• How difficult is it for you to make the following types of presentations? [5-level rating, with “not applicable” option]
• In the last year, approximately how many of the following types of presentations did you make? [free response]
• In your lifetime, approximately how many of the following types of presentations have you made? [free response]
• For approximately how many years have you been making the following types of presentations? [free response]

As part of the expertise-related measures, we also asked the participants to identify the purported advantages and disadvantages of each presentation format, according to its proponents and critics, respectively. For PowerPoint and Prezi, we asked participants to identify whether or not it had particular functionalities (e.g., the capacity to record narration, create custom backgrounds, print handouts). Finally, participants viewed three sets of four short Prezi presentations and rank-ordered them from best to worst. In each set we manipulated a key dimension of Prezi effectiveness, according to its designers: the use of zooming, the connection of ideas, and the use of visual metaphor.

Presenter participants were tested in person at the Harvard Decision Science Lab, and randomly assigned to one of the three groups: Prezi, PowerPoint, or oral presentation. A total of 50 data collection sessions were held. In each session, there were typically three presenter participants (one for each presentation format); as a result of participants who failed to arrive or overbooking, there were ten sessions with only two presenters and six sessions with four presenters.

After providing informed consent, participants completed an online survey (in the lab) in which they rank-ordered three sets of recorded example PowerPoint and oral presentations. Identical in form to the example Prezi presentations they judged in the pre-survey, these short presentations were designed to assess their understanding of effective presentation design by manipulating a key aspect specific to each format. For PowerPoint presentations, we manipulated the use of text, use of extraneous “bells and whistles,” and graph design; for oral presentations, the three dimensions were verbal behavior, nonverbal behavior (other than eye contact), and eye contact. In selecting these dimensions (and those for Prezi), we consulted with a variety of experts, including software designers, speaking coaches, and researchers.

Next, presenters were shown material from a multimedia case created for and used by the Harvard Business School. Specifically, they were told the following (the company featured in the business case will be referred to anonymously here as “Company X” to respect their contractual agreement with the school):

For the next two hours, you are going to pretend to be the chief marketing officer of i-Mart, a large chain of retail stores. i-Mart recently made an offer to [Company X] to sell their products in i-Mart stores. Your boss, the CEO of i-Mart, has asked you to make a presentation to [Company X]’s leadership that persuades them to accept i-Mart’s offer. In your presentation, you will need to argue that accepting i-Mart’s offer is in [Company X]’s strategic interests, and address any concerns they may have about how accepting the offer might affect their corporate identity.

As a participant in this study, your primary job today is to prepare and then deliver this presentation. The presentation will be very short (less than 5 minutes) and made live (via Skype) to an audience of participants who are playing the part of [Company X] executives. Before you start planning your presentation, you will first learn more about [Company X] and how they’re thinking about i-Mart’s offer.

On their own computer workstation, participants studied the multimedia case for 30 minutes and were invited to take notes on blank paper provided for them. The multimedia case material included video and textual descriptions of Company’s X’s corporate culture, business model, and constituent communities.

Following this study period, participants were given 45 minutes to create a presentation in one of three randomly assigned presentation formats: PowerPoint, Prezi, or oral. To assist participants in the PowerPoint and Prezi conditions, we provided them with a set of digital artifacts including text, data, and graphics related to the case. Participants were not told that other participants were asked to present in different formats, and the workstations were separated from each other to prevent participants from discovering this manipulation.

After this preparation period, participants were taken individually (in a counterbalanced order) to another room to present to a live audience via Skype. For PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, we shared each participant’s presentation with the audience via screen sharing; thus they viewed both the presenter and the presentation. For those presenters who consented, we also recorded their presentations for future research purposes. After making their presentations, presenters completed a final survey about their presentation (e.g., “How convincing do you think your presentation will be to [Company X’s] board members”), the corporate scenario (e.g., What do you think [Company X] should do?”), and their presentation format (e.g., “How likely are you to recommend the presentation tool or presentation format you used to others to make professional presentations?”).

Audience procedure

Audience participants completed the entire experiment remotely and online. Their participation was scheduled for the end of the presenter sessions so that the in-lab presenters could present live to a remote audience via Skype. We recruited between three and six audience participants per session, although participants who failed to arrive or Skype connectivity issues resulted in some sessions with only one or two audience participants: Five sessions had one participant, twelve sessions had two participants, sixteen sessions had three participants, eleven sessions had four participants, four sessions had five participants, and two sessions had six participants.

Individuals who responded to the recruitment notice completed a consent form and three online surveys prior to their scheduled Skype session. The first survey was a slightly modified form of the presenter pre-survey (demographics, background on presentation formats, rank-ordering of example Prezis) in which they also scheduled their Skype session. In the second survey, audience participants were told that they were “going to play the role of a corporate executive listening to several short business presentations,” and that their task was “to evaluate the quality of these presentations, each made by another participant engaged in a similar role-playing scenario.” They were then shown a brief video and textual description of the fictionalized corporate scenario (an abridged version of what presenter participants studied), and told the following:

You are a board member for [Company X], an innovative clothing company. Another company, i-Mart, wants to sell [Company Y’s products] in its stores. You and your fellow board members must decide whether or not to accept i-Mart's offer.

And in the third survey they rank-ordered the three sets of recorded example PowerPoint and oral presentations.

At the time of the scheduled session, the audience participants logged into Skype using a generic account provided by the research team, and were instructed to turn on their webcams and put on headphones. Once the first presenter participant was ready to present, the experimenter initiated the group Skype call, confirmed that the software was functioning properly, invited the presenter into the room to begin, left the room before the start of the presentation, monitored the presentation remotely via a closed-circuit video feed, and re-entered the room at the presentation’s conclusion. For Prezi and PowerPoint presentations, Skype’s built-in screen-sharing function was used to share the visual component of the presentation; audience participants viewing these presentations were instructed to use the split-screen view, with windows of equal size showing the presenter and the accompanying visuals.

Immediately after viewing each presentation, participants evaluated it via an online survey. They rated each presentation on how organized, engaging, realistic, persuasive, and effective it was using a five-level scale with response options of not at all , slightly , somewhat , very , and extremely . They were also invited to offer feedback to the presenter on how the presentation could be improved. After the final presentation, participants rank-ordered the presentations on the same dimensions (e.g., effectiveness, persuasiveness). Halfway through the experiment we added a final question in which we asked participants to rank-order PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentation formats “in terms of their general effectiveness, ignoring how well individual presenters (including today's) use that format,” and to explain their rank-ordering.

Prior experience and pre-existing beliefs

Participants’ prior experience with and pre-existing beliefs about each presentation format provide a baseline that informs the research findings. If presenter participants had more experience with and more positive beliefs about one format than the others—and those assigned to that format induced more positive assessments from the audience members than did those assigned to the other formats—then the results are less compelling than if there was no correlation between these baseline measures and the experimental outcomes. The same applies to audience participants: Are they merely judging presentations according to their initial biases? Conversely, the results are most compelling if there is a negative association between the baseline measures and the experimental findings. For this reason—and to check that presenters assigned to the different formats did not happen to differ in these baseline measures—we analyzed participants’ prior experience with and pre-existing beliefs about PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentation formats.

Both audience and presenter participants were least experienced with Prezi and most experienced with oral presentations. At the outset, they rated PowerPoint as the most effective and easiest to use to present material and Prezi as the least effective and most difficult to use to present. For watching presentations, audience participants rated PowerPoint most effective and oral presentations least effective, but rated Prezi as more enjoyable than other formats. For watching presentations, presenter participants did not find any format more effective than the others. Table 3 presents full descriptive and inferential statistics for all self-reported measures of prior experience with and preexisting beliefs about Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations.

Note: F -statistics and p -values are from one-way ANOVAs with Presentation Format as the within-participant factor; for items with significant non-sphericity, we adjusted the dfs as necessary and confirmed the results with non-parametric Friedman tests. For rating items in which participants could indicate “Not applicable (I have never seen/given this type of presentation)”, the reported means, F -statistics, sample sizes, and p -values include only data from participants who did not select this response option; no presenter participants selected this response option. For rating items, post-hoc inferences are drawn from Fisher’s LSD tests (using all available data); for frequency items, post-hoc inferences are drawn from non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests due the skewed distributions and presence of outliers.

Presenters assigned to different formats did not differ in their experience with or pre-existing beliefs about presentations formats. They also did not differ in how well they identified the purported advantages and disadvantages of each presentation format, how well they identified the software features of PowerPoint and Prezi, or how accurately they could identify effective presentations of each format.

Audience ratings

In term of their prior experience with and pre-existing beliefs about presentation formats, both audience and presenter participants were biased in favor of oral and PowerPoint presentations and against Prezi. After presenters were randomly assigned to these different formats, how did the audience evaluate their presentations?

In examining how presentation format affected the audience’s ratings of the presentations, two complications arose. First, sessions with two presentations were missing one presentation format, and sessions with four presentations had two presentations of the same format. To address this complexity we only conducted pairwise comparisons of different formats (e.g., PPT versus oral) instead of omnibus tests, and—for those sessions with four presentations—we averaged ratings for the two same-format presentations. To be certain that the differing number of presentations per session did not somehow bias the results even after adopting these measures, we also conducted an analysis on the subset of sessions that had exactly three presentations.

Second, the number of audience participants per session ranged from one to six. In calculating descriptive statistics, some sessions would be weighted more heavily than others unless ratings were first averaged across participants within the same session, then averaged across sessions. In calculating inferential statistics, averaging across ratings from different participants within the same session who received presentations in the same format was necessary to ensure that the sampling units were independent of each other, an assumption of all parametric and most nonparametric tests. In other words, for both descriptive and inferential statistics, we treated session (instead of participant) as the sampling unit.

As an empirical matter, this multi-step averaging—within participants across identical presentation formats, then across participants within the same session—had little impact on the condition means (i.e., the average ratings of PowerPoint, Prezi, or oral presentations on each dimension). Compared to the simplest, raw averaging of all ratings in one step, the maximum absolute difference between these two sets of means was .07 (on a 1–5 scale) and the mean absolute difference was .04.

To test whether the presentations’ format affected their ratings, therefore, we conducted paired t -tests for each rating dimension, with presentation format as the repeated measure and mean session rating as the dependent variable. Because we conducted three tests for each dimension—pairing each format with every other—we controlled for multiple comparisons by dividing our significance threshold by the same factor (i.e., α = .05/3 = .017). Results revealed that presentation format influenced audience ratings. In particular, the audience rated Prezi presentations as significantly more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentations; on a five-level scale, the average participant rated Prezi presentations over half a level higher than other presentations. The audience did not rate PowerPoint presentations differently than oral presentations on any dimension. Table 4 and Fig 1 present these results.

Note: Because some sessions only had two presentations (i.e., Prezi and PPT, Prezi and Oral, or PPT and Oral), the mean ratings for the same format vary slightly across pairwise comparisons. The p -values are uncorrected for multiple comparisons; instead we used a corrected significance threshold of α = .05/3 = .017.

Audience members rated presentations on each dimension on a 5-level scale (1 = “not at all,” 5 = “extremely”). The figure shows session-level means from all available data, including those from sessions with two or four presentations.

By limiting the analysis to the 34 sessions with exactly three presentations (one of each format), we could ensure that the sessions with two or four presentations did not somehow bias the results. Moreover, this procedure enabled us to conduct omnibus tests of presentation format for each rating dimension. These omnibus tests revealed significant effects for organization, F (2,66) = 12.9, p < .0001, engagement, F (2,66) = 4.6, p = .01, persuasion, F (2,66) = 3.9, p = .03, and effectiveness, F (2,66) = 7.2, p = .001. The results from post-hoc tests (Fisher’s LSD) aligned with the original pairwise comparisons: On all dimensions, the audience rated Prezi presentations higher than PowerPoint and oral presentations, p s < .05; PowerPoint and oral presentations were not rated differently on any dimension, p s>.05. (Note: All p -values for pairwise tests here and elsewhere are two-tailed.)

To explore whether the obtained results were somehow the result of demand characteristics, we analyzed ratings from only the first presentation in each session. This analysis yielded the same pattern of findings, with a to-be-expected reduction in statistical significance due to the loss of power. On all four dimensions, a one-way, independent-measures ANOVA yielded significant or marginally-significant results: organized, F (2,49) = 5.1, p = .01; engaging, F (2,49) = 2.5, p = .09; persuasive, F (2,49) = 2.6, p = .09; and effective, F (2,49) = 5.8, p = .006. In all cases, Prezi was rated higher than oral and PowerPoint presentations (post-hoc LSD p s ≤.08).

On average, the audience rated the presentations as realistic, with a modal rating of “very realistic.” Our intent in including this rating dimension was merely to verify that our experimental protocol resulted in realistic rather than contrived presentations; we therefore did not test for differences in these ratings as a function of group differences.

Audience rankings

As just noted, participants randomly assigned to present using Prezi were rated as giving more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective presentations compared to those randomly assigned to the PowerPoint or oral presentation conditions. In addition, at the end of each session audience participants rank-ordered each type of presentation on the same dimensions used for the ratings. Here we ask: Did the audiences’ rank-orderings align with the ratings?

The same complexities with the ratings data—the variable number of conditions and audience participants per session—applied as well to the ranking data. We therefore adopted a similar analytic strategy, with one exception: we conducted non-parametric rather than parametric pairwise tests, given the rank-ordered nature of the raw data and distributional assumptions that underlie parametric tests.

Using the session-level mean ranks, we tested the effect of presentation format with three sets of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. The results had the identical pattern as those from the ratings data: the audience rated Prezi presentations as significantly more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentation (all p s ≤ .006); the audience did not rate PowerPoint presentations differently than oral presentations on any dimension. Table 5 and Fig 2 present these results.

Note: Because some sessions only had two presentations (i.e., Prezi and PPT, Prezi and Oral, or PPT and Oral), the mean ratings for the same format vary slightly across pairwise comparisons. We did not add the rank-ordering until the third session, hence two sessions have missing data. All inferential statistics are from Wilcoxon signed-ranked tests. The p-values are uncorrected for multiple comparisons; instead we used a corrected significance threshold of α = .05/3 = .017.

Audience members ranked the presentations from best to worst, with lower ranks indicating better presentations. The figure shows session-level means from all available data, including those from sessions with two or four presentations.

As with the ratings data, we also conducted omnibus tests of only those sessions with exactly three presentations to validate that unbalanced sessions did not somehow bias the results. These tests (Friedman ANOVAs) revealed significant effects for organization, exact p = .0005, engagement, exact p = .04, and effectiveness, exact p = .003; we found only a marginally significant effect for persuasion, exact p = .08. Post-hoc tests (Fisher’s LSD) showed that the audience ranked Prezi presentations higher than PowerPoint and oral presentations on all dimensions, p s < .05; PowerPoint and oral presentations were not ranked differently on engagement, persuasion, or effectiveness, p s>.05, but the audience did rank PowerPoint presentations as more organized than oral presentations, p = .04.

Audience omnibus judgments of effectiveness

Before and after the experimental session, audience participants judged the general effectiveness of the three presentation formats. In the pre-survey, they rated each format on its effectiveness for them as presenters and audience members. In the post-survey, they rank-ordered the formats on their “general effectiveness” and were instructed to ignore “how well individual presenters (including today's) use that format.” Although the pre- and post-questions differed in their phrasing and response formats, they nonetheless afford us an opportunity to investigate if and how their judgments changed over the course of the experiment.

As already described (see Table 3 ), the audience began the experiment judging PowerPoint presentations as most effective for presenters and audiences. They ended the experiment, however, with different judgments of efficacy: A majority (52%) ranked Prezi presentations as the most effective, a majority (57%) ranked oral presentations as least effective, and a plurality (49%) ranked PowerPoint presentations second in effectiveness. A Friedman’s ANOVA test (on the mean rankings) confirmed that participants rated presentation formats differently, exact p = .00007. Post hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed that the audience ranked both Prezi and PowerPoint presentations as more effective than oral presentations, ps ≤.003). They did not rank Prezi and PowerPoint presentations significantly differently ( p = .15). Fig 3 presents these results.

Note: Means shown from pre-survey items are calculated based on responses from all participants (as opposed to only those who had experience with all presentation formats).

In the pre-survey, some audience participants reported prior experience viewing Prezi presentations but others did not (i.e., those who selected the “not applicable” response option). Compared to participants with no prior experience watching Prezi presentations ( n = 34), participants with prior Prezi experience ( n = 117) rated PowerPoint presentations (but not oral presentations) as less effective, t (149) = 2.7, p = .007, mean difference = .47, and less enjoyable for them, t (149) = 2.9, p = .004, mean difference = .53. Thus, prior experience with Prezi was associated with negative pre-existing judgments of PowerPoint.

Audience correlates of presentation ratings and rankings

What, if any, individual-level variables—demographics and baseline survey responses—correlated with the audience’s judgments of the presentations? If, for example, the more experience the audience had with Prezi, the worse they evaluated those presentations, such a correlation would suggest that the current findings reflect a novelty effect.

We did not find any significant relationships between the audiences’ prior experience with a given presentation format (presenter experience rating, number of years, number of presentations watched last year or lifetime) and their ratings or rank-orderings of that presentation format on any dimensions, all | r| s < .16. The only pre-existing audience beliefs about the presentation formats (presenter effectiveness, presenter difficulty, audience effectiveness, audience enjoyableness) that correlated with their ratings or rankings were for oral presentations: the more effective participants rated oral presentations for them as audience members before the experiment, the more effective they rated and ranked oral presentations in the experiment as engaging, r = .22 and .26, respectively, p s < .01.

Among demographic variables, only age showed reliable correlations with the audiences’ evaluations of presentations: the older the participant, the more effective they rated PowerPoint presentations, r = .23, p = .007, the more persuasive they ranked PowerPoint presentations, r = .24, p = .006, and the less organized and persuasive they rated oral presentations, r = -.32, p = .001, and r = -.21, p = .01, respectively.

Audience participants’ success in distinguishing better from worse presentations of each format (i.e., their rank-ordering of short expert-created examples) did not correlate with their evaluations of the experimental presentations, nor did it correlate with the audiences’ self-reported experience with each format.

Audience free response

Although we cannot assume that participants understood the reasons behind their rank-orderings (cf. [ 86 ]), their explanations may nonetheless offer some insight into how they perceived different presentation formats. In explaining their rank-ordering of the presentation formats in terms of their general effectiveness, 8% of participants who preferred Prezi mentioned that it was new or different or that PowerPoint presentations were old or outdated . More commonly, they described Prezi as more engaging or interactive (49%), organized (18%), visually interesting , visually compelling , visually pleasing , sleek , or vivid (15%), or creative (13%). Of participants who preferred PowerPoint, 38% described it as more concise , clear , easy to follow , familiar , professional , or organized than the other presentation formats. An equal percentage explained their choice in terms of negative judgments of Prezi, including comments that Prezi was disorienting , busy , crowded , amateurish , or overwhelming . Participants who rank-ordered oral presentations as most effective remarked that they felt more engaged or connected with the presenter, could better give their undivided attention to the presentation (29%), valued the eye contact or face-to-face interaction with the presenter (14%), or found presentation software distracting (14%).

Presenter outcomes and correlates of success

A series of one-way ANOVAs revealed that presentation format did not affect the presenters’ judgments about the business scenario (e.g., “What do you think [Company X] should do?”), self-reported comprehension of the business scenario (“How much do you think you understand the situation with [Company X] and i-Mart?”), or ratings of their own motivation (e.g., “This activity was fun to do”), self-efficacy (e.g., “I think I am pretty good at this activity”), effort (e.g., “I tried very hard on this activity), and effectiveness as presenters (“How convincing do you think your presentation will be to [Company X]’s board members?”); participants using different presentation formats also did not differ in their performance on the multiple-choice test about the business scenario, all p s >.05.

The presenter groups did differ in how inclined they were to recommend their presentation format to others (“How likely are you to recommend the presentation tool or presentation format you used to others to make professional presentations?”), F (2,144) = 4.2, p = .02, with presenters who used Prezi or PowerPoint being more likely to recommend their format than those who made oral presentations, LSD p = .03 and p = .007, respectively.

Presenter variables—including demographic characteristics and experience with their assigned format—generally did not predict their presentation success, either in terms of audience ratings or rankings. The one exception was that Prezi presenters who were better able to identify effective Prezi presentations were rated and ranked as giving more effective and engaging presentations, .008 < p s < .04.

Participants who were randomly assigned to present using Prezi were judged as giving more effective, organized, engaging, and persuasive presentations than those who were randomly assigned to present orally or with PowerPoint. This was true despite the fact that both audience and presenter participants were initially predisposed against Prezi. What might explain these findings?

One explanation is a novelty effect: Perhaps the audience preferred Prezi simply because it is relatively new to them. It appears that this was not the case, however: Only 8% of participants claimed that they preferred Prezi because it was new or different, and there was no significant relationship between the audiences’ experience with Prezi and their ratings or rank-orderings.

Another explanation for these results is that the presenters or audience members were somehow biased towards the Prezi presentations. Again, however, this appears not to be the case. The presenters were least experienced in Prezi, judged themselves least effective presenting with Prezi, and found Prezi presentations hardest to create. We recruited only a small minority (8%) of presenters based on their prior association with Prezi, and used the most conservative exclusion criteria feasible: only individuals without any experience with Prezi or PowerPoint were excluded from participating. All presenters were randomly assigned to their presentation format and were blind to the experimental manipulation. In recruiting audience participants, we did not mention Prezi or PowerPoint, and selected participants only based on their access to Skype and a sufficiently large computer screen. In addition, we minimized contact between the investigator and research participants, and presentations were never identified based on their format; at the end of the experiment, in fact, some participants did not even realize that they had seen a Prezi presentation (as evidenced by their free responses). Data were collected through standardized, online surveys, the investigator was not in the room with the presenter during his or her presentation, and the investigator interacted with the audience only briefly to set up their Skype session. Finally, an analysis of ratings from only the first presentations yielded the same results as the full analysis, making implausible an interpretation based on audience demand characteristics.

Thus, the most likely explanation is that individuals do, in fact, perceive Prezi presentations more favorably than PowerPoint or oral presentation. Experiment 1 has several limitations, however. First, because each audience participant in Experiment 1 was exposed to multiple presentations, we were unable to evaluate presentations on their ultimate goal: to convince the audience (role-playing Company X board members) to accept i-Mart’s business offer. In other words, Experiment 1 demonstrated that Prezi presentations are more effective than other formats in terms of audience perceptions but not decision-making outcomes. Second, we asked the audience about their pre-existing beliefs and prior experiences with PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations at the beginning of the Experiment 1; although it is difficult to imagine how this questioning could have produced the obtained results—particularly given the nature of their pre-existing beliefs and prior experiments—it is a remote possibility. Third, just like the results from any single experiment, the findings of Experiment 1 should be treated cautiously until replicated. We designed a second experiment to address these limitations and extend the findings from the first experiment.

Experiment 2

In Experiment 2 we showed online participants a single presentation from Experiment 1, and varied randomly which type of presentation (Prezi, PowerPoint, or oral) they viewed. We also randomly assigned some participants to view a presentation on material that was not related to the case material; this control condition served as a baseline that allowed us to estimate the impact of each presentation format. To minimize demand characteristics, we asked participants about their experiences with different presentation formats at the conclusion of the experiment (instead of the beginning), and did not expose participants to multiple presentation formats. Finally, to investigate better the nature of participants’ perceptions about presentation effectiveness, we distinguished between perceptions about the presentation, the presenter, and the audiovisual component of the presentation.

We recruited native-English speaking participants via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk using the following language: “In this study, you will read a business case, watch presentations, assume a role, and make a decision.” They were compensated $4 for approximately one hour of their time. Excluding pilot participants who offered us initial feedback on the survey and protocol, 1398 individuals consented to and began the experiment. Of these, 16 participants were excluded because of evidence that they didn’t complete the task properly (e.g., answering a long series of questions identically, incorrectly answering a “trap” question), and 305 were excluded because they dropped out before completing all of the outcome measures, leaving 1069 participants in the final dataset: 272 in the Prezi group, 261 in the PowerPoint group, 275 in the oral presentation group, and 261 in the control group. The number of excluded participants did not covary with group assignment or demographic variables. Table 6 presents demographic information on the included participants.

Note: Unless otherwise stated, numbers refer to number of participants in each category.

The main stimuli for this experiment consisted of recorded presentations from Experiment 1. For Prezi and PowerPoint presentations, these were split-screen videos showing the presenter on one side of the screen and the visuals on the other side. For the oral presentations, these were simply audiovisual recordings of the presenter.

Of the 146 presenter participants from Experiment 1, 33 either did not consent to being video-recorded or were not recorded due to technical difficulties. We therefore had a pool of 113 presentation videos to use for Experiment 2: 41 from the Prezi condition (out of a possible 50), 40 from the PowerPoint condition (out of possible 49), and 32 from the oral presentation condition (out of a possible 47). The proportion of presentations that were video-recorded did not vary with their format, exact p = .61.

Some of the recorded presentations from Experiment 1 were unusable because of intractable quality issues (e.g., inaudible speech, incomplete video, partially occluded presenter), leaving a total of 89 usable videos (34 Prezi, 28 PowerPoint, 27 oral). The proportion of videos removed because of quality issues did not vary with presentation format, exact p = .57.

We randomly selected 25 videos in each format, resulting in a total pool of 75 videos. Because of a URL typo that was not detected until after testing, one PowerPoint video was not presented and participants assigned that video were not able to complete the experiment. Video length varied by format, F (2, 71) = 4.2, p = .02, with PowerPoint and Prezi presentations lasted longer than oral presentations ( M = 5.9, 6.0, and 4.6 minutes, respectively).

We were concerned that we could have, perhaps unconsciously, selected better stimuli in the Prezi condition, which would have biased the results. To ensure that our judgments of major audiovisual problems and subsequent exclusion of some videos were not biased, we recruited a separate group of participants to rate the audiovisual quality of the 113 presentation videos. Using the following language, we recruited 455 individuals from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to serve as judges:

In this study you will judge the technical quality of three short videos. To participate you must have a high-speed Internet connection. We will compensate you $2 for 15–20 minutes of your time.

These participants were totally blind to the experimental hypotheses and manipulation. They completed the audiovisual rating task completely online via the Qualtrics survey platform, and were given the following instructions:

We need your help in determining the audiovisual quality of some Skype presentations we recorded. We want to know which presentations we can use for additional research, and which need to be eliminated due to major technical problems with the recordings. The sorts of technical problems that might exist in some of the videos are: incomplete recordings (the recording starts late or stops early), cropped recordings (the camera isn’t positioned properly), choppy or blurry video, and absent or inaudible audio.

You will watch a single presentation video. Please ignore any aspect of the recording other than its audiovisual quality. In particular, do not base your judgments on the presentation itself, including the presenter’s argument, appearance, or the nature of the accompanying slides. The only thing we care about is whether the audio and video were recorded properly.

Finally, please keep in mind that because these videos were recorded through Skype, even the best recordings are not very high quality.

These judge participants then watched a presentation video (selected at random), rated the quality of its audio and video (on a five-level scale from “very bad” to “very good”), and indicated whether or not there were “any major technical problems with the presentations audio or video”; those who reported major technical problems were asked to identify them.

To address any possibility of experimenter bias—which seemed unlikely, given that we designed the procedure from the outset to guard against such effects—we conducted a series of Presentation Format (Prezi, PowerPoint, oral) x Quality Judgment (inclusion, exclusion) ANOVAs to test 1) whether audiovisual quality was for any reason confounded with presentation format (i.e., the main effect of Presentation Format), 2) whether the excluded videos were indeed lower quality than the included videos (i.e., the main effect of Quality Judgment), and 3) whether our exclusion of videos was biased based on their format (i.e., the interaction between Presentation Format and Audiovisual Quality). We conducted the ANOVAs on the three measures of audiovisual quality collected from the independent judges: ratings of audio quality, ratings of video quality, and judgments of major audiovisual problems.

The results were straightforward: For all three dependent variables, there were no main effects of Presentation Format, p s > .13, but we did find a significant main effect of Quality Judgment (with included videos being judged better quality than excluded videos), all p s < .002, and did not find any interaction effects, all p s > .31. In other words, presentation format was not confounded with audiovisual quality, our judgments of quality corresponded to those of blind judges, and our exclusion of videos was unrelated to presentation format.

Participants completed the experiment entirely online through Qualtrics. After providing informed consent, and answering preliminary demographic and background questions (e.g., about their familiarity with business concepts and practices) they were told the following:

In this part of the study, you are going to play the role of a corporate executive for [Company X], an innovative clothing company. Another company, i-Mart, wants to sell [Company X’s] t-shirts in its many retail stores. You must decide whether or not to accept i-Mart's offer.

To help you make your decision, we will first provide you with some background on [Company X] and the i-Mart offer. You will see a series of short videos and text that describe relevant aspects of [Company X’s] origins, business model, practices, culture, and community. Please review this background material carefully.

Participants were then shown a series of brief video and textual descriptions of the fictionalized corporate scenario, including information on Company X’s business model, business processes, community, and culture. This material was an abridged version of what Experiment 1 presenter participants studied, but an expanded version of what Experiment 1 audience participants studied.

After viewing the multimedia case material, the participants were asked to identify what product Company X sells (a “trap” question to exclude non-serious participants) and to rate the background material on how engaging it was, how much they enjoyed it, how much they paid attention to it, and how difficult it was to understand.

Participants randomly assigned to the Prezi, PowerPoint, and Oral Presentation conditions were then told the following:

Now that you know a little bit about the company, you will watch a video presentation from another research participant. Just as you are playing the role of a [Company X] executive, the other participant is playing the role of i-Mart's Chief Marketing Office (CMO). In this presentation, he or she will try to convince you and your fellow [Company X] executives to accept i-Mart's offer.

Because this presentation is from another research participant playing the role of an i-Mart executive--and not an actual i-Mart executive--please disregard the presenter's appearance (clothing, age, etc). And because we did not professionally videorecord the presentation, please also try to disregard the relatively poor quality of the video compared to the videos you just viewed.

The purpose of this research is to understand what makes presentations effective. So please listen carefully and do your best to imagine that this is "real".

Identically to Experiment 1, participants rated the presentation on how organized, engaging, realistic, persuasive, and effective it was on a five-level scale from “not at all” to “extremely.” Using the same scale, these participants also rated the presenter on how organized, engaging, persuasive, effective, confident, enthusiastic, knowledgeable, professional, nervous, and boring he or she was.

Participants in the Prezi and PowerPoint groups were asked three additional questions. First, they were asked to rate the visual component of the presentation (i.e., the Prezi or the PowerPoint slides) on how organized, engaging, persuasive, effective, dynamic, visually compelling, distracting, informative, distinctive, and boring it was. Second, they were asked to rate whether the presentation had “not enough”, “too much” or an “about right” amount of text, graphs, images, and animations. And finally, there were asked to comment on the visual component of the presentations, including ways in which it could be improved.

All participants then summarized the presentation in their own words, with a minimum acceptable length of 50 characters. Participants were asked to rate how well they understood the “situation with [Company X] and I-Mart,” and to decide whether [Company X] should accept or reject i-Mart’s offer (on a 6-level scale, with the modifiers “definitely,” “probably,” and “possibly”).

In addition, we asked participants a series of recall and comprehension questions about the case. An example recall question is “According to the background materials and the presentation, approximately how many members does [Company X] have?”, with four possible answers ranging from 500,000 to 1.5 million. An example comprehension question is “According to the background materials, what is the biggest challenge [Company X] is facing?”, with possible answers ranging from “marketing” to “logistics.” These comprehension questions were based on the instructor’s guide to the business case material, and included open-ended questions (“Why do you think [Company X] should accept or reject i-Mart's offer?”). At this point we also asked another trap question (“What is 84 plus 27?”).

Finally, and after answering all questions about the business case and presentation, participants answered background questions about their experience with, knowledge of, and general preference for different presentation formats. They also rank-ordered the mini examples of Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations in terms of their effectiveness. These background questions and tasks were the same as those used in Experiment 1.

Participants in the control condition completed the same protocol, with a few exceptions: First, instead of being shown presentations from Experiment 1, they viewed one of three instructional videos (matched for length with the Experiment 1 presentations). Before they viewed these videos they were told “Before you decide what to do about i-Mart's offer to [Company X], we would like you to watch an unrelated presentation and briefly answer some questions about it.” Second, they did not rate how realistic the presentation was, nor did they rate the visual component on how organized, engaging, persuasive, effective, dynamic, visually compelling, distracting, informative, distinctive, and boring it was. And finally, they did not complete the final set of background questions on the different presentation formats or rank-order the example presentations.

At the outset, participants rated oral and PowerPoint presentations as equally effective in general, and Prezi presentations as less effective than the other two formats. Just as we found in Experiment 1, participants rated themselves as more experienced and effective in making and oral and PowerPoint presentations compared to Prezi presentations. They also rated oral and PowerPoint presentations as more enjoyable and effective for them than viewing Prezi presentations. When asked how difficult it was to make the different types of presentations, they rated Prezi as more difficult than oral and PowerPoint presentations, and oral presentations as more difficult than PowerPoint ones. In terms of the number of presentations watched in the last year and in their lifetime—as well as the number of years of experience—they reported more experience watching oral compared to PowerPoint presentations, and more experience watching PowerPoint than watching Prezi presentations. The same pattern was true for their reported experience in making presentations, with one exception: They reported making more PowerPoint than oral presentations in their lifetime. Table 7 presents full descriptive and inference statistics for all self-reported measures of prior experience with and preexisting beliefs about Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations. The experimental groups did not differ significantly on any of these variables.

Note: F -statistics and p -values are from one-way ANOVAs with Presentation Format as the within-participant factor; for items with significant non-sphericity, we adjusted the df s as necessary and confirmed the results with non-parametric Friedman tests. For rating items in which participants could indicate “Not applicable (I have never seen/given this type of presentation),” the reported means, F -statistics, sample sizes, and p -values include only data from participants who did not select this response option. For rating items, post-hoc inferences are drawn from Fisher’s LSD tests (using all available data); for frequency items, post-hoc inferences are drawn from non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests due the skewed distributions and presence of outliers.

Most participants (78%) were either “not at all familiar” or “slightly familiar” with Company X, and the modal participant reported being “somewhat experienced” with “concepts and practices from the business world, such as strategy, innovation, product development, sales, and marketing.” The groups did not differ significantly on these variables, nor did they differ on demographic variables such as age, gender, or education.

For overall judgments of the presentations, participants rated Prezi as more organized, effective, engaging, and persuasive than PowerPoint and oral presentations, and rated PowerPoint no differently than oral presentations. They also rated Prezi presenters as more organized, knowledgeable, effective, and professional than PowerPoint presenters and oral presenters; Prezi presenters were not rated differently from other presentations on how nervous, boring, enthusiastic, confident, persuasive, or engaging they were, and PowerPoint presenters were rated no differently than oral presenters on all dimensions. In judging the visual components of the Prezi and PowerPoint presentations, the audience rated Prezi presentations as more dynamic, visually compelling, and distinctive than PowerPoint slides, and marginally more effective and persuasive.

Examining the magnitude of mean differences, some effects are clearly larger than others. Most notably, Prezi presentations are rated as most organized and visually dynamic, and Prezi presenters are rated as most organized. Fig 4 and Table 8 present the descriptive and inferential statistics, respectively, for these audience ratings.

Note: The Prezi vs PPT, Prezi vs oral, and PPT vs oral t -tests have 526, 545, and 534 degrees of freedom, respectively. The p -values are uncorrected for multiple comparisons; instead we used a corrected significance threshold of α = .05/3 = .017.

Note: rating dimensions are ordered by the magnitude of the difference between Prezi and the other presentation formats; for dimensions with no significant differences between presentation formats, only the overall mean is displayed.

The modal participant rated the background case material on Company X as “very engaging” and “completely enjoyable,” reported “mostly” understanding the situation with i-Mart and Company X, and rated the presentations as “very realistic.” Seventy percent of participants expected to do “somewhat well” or “very well” when quizzed about the case. There were no significant group differences on any of these variables.

Audience decision-making

Did the presentations actually influence participants’ core judgment of the business scenario and, if so, was one presentation format more effective than others?

Participants who received a Prezi presentation accepted i-Mart’s offer 53.7% of the time, participants who received a PowerPoint presentation accepted the offer 49.8% of the time, participants exposed to an oral presentation accepted it 45.5% of the time, and participants exposed to the control presentation accepted it 37.5% of the time (see Fig 5 ). In an omnibus test, these differences were significant, exact p = .002. Specific comparisons revealed that Prezi presentations were significantly more influential than control presentations, exact p = 0003, marginally more influential than oral presentations, exact p = .06, and no more influential than PowerPoint presentations, exact p = .39; PowerPoint presentations were significantly more influential than control presentations, exact p = .006, but not oral presentations, exact p = .34; oral presentations were marginally more influential than control presentations, exact p = .07. In order to investigate the impact of presentation software on decision-making, we contrasted the Prezi and PowerPoint groups with the oral presentation groups. We found a marginally significant effect, exact p = .06.

On the whole, therefore, the participants’ decision-making results were concordant descriptively (if not always inferentially) with the rating results.

If participants’ perceptions of the presentations and decisions about the case were both influenced by presentation format, then we would expect them to be associated with each other. And this is indeed what we found. Excluding participants in the control group (who did not make judgments about comparable presentations), those who rejected the i-Mart offer rated presentations as worse than those who accepted the i-Mart offer. This was true for 23 of the 24 rating dimensions (“visually boring” was the exception), with the largest effects for ratings of effectiveness and persuasiveness. Those who rejected the offer rated the overall presentation, visual aids, and presenter as less effective than those who accepted the offer, with effect sizes (Cohen’s d ) of .93, .83, and .78, respectively. These effects were consistent across formats, all interaction p s > .05.

We conducted an analogous set of analyses that preserved the original 6-level scale of the decision variable (“possibly accept,” “probably accept,” “definitely accept,” “possibly reject,” “probably reject,” “definitely reject”). These analyses produced qualitatively identical results, both in terms of decision-making as a function of group assignment and the correlation between decision-making and presentation ratings.

Memory and comprehension

Participants’ performance on the four rote memory questions did not vary across conditions, nor did their correct identification (according to the case designers) of reasons to accept or reject the offer, with one exception: Compared to those in the treatment groups, control participants were more likely to identify Company X’s ability to meet production demand as a reason to reject the i-Mart, omnibus exact p = .00004.

Correlates of presentation outcomes

There were no notable correlations between demographic variables and participants’ ratings or decisions. In particular, participants’ experience with or preexisting beliefs about each presentation format did not correlate with their ratings of the experimental presentations, mirroring the results from Experiment 1 (but with much greater statistical power). Presentation length or recording quality (as assessed by the independent judges) did not correlate with presentation outcomes.

Participants’ success in distinguishing better from worse presentations of each format—that is, their rank-ordering of short expert-created examples—correlated slightly with their evaluations of the presentations. Most notably, the better participants did on the rank-ordering PowerPoint task, the worse they rated PowerPoint (but not Prezi) presentations on visual dimensions; the same was true for the Prezi task and presentations. For example, participants’ performance in the PowerPoint task correlated negatively with their judgments of how “visually dynamic” PowerPoint presentations were, r = -.22, p = .0005, and participants’ performance on the Prezi task correlated negatively with their judgments of how “visually dynamic” Prezi presentations were, r = -.16, p = .009. Thus, individuals with more expertise in PowerPoint and Prezi were more critical of PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, respectively.

Audiovisual attributes of Prezi and PowerPoint presentations

To understand the media attributes and psychological mechanisms that underlie the observed effects of format, we examined how participants’ judgments about amount of text, graphs, animations, and images in the presentations correlated with their judgments of the presentations, the visual component of the presentations, and the presenters themselves. To examine these relationships, we conducted one-way ANOVAs with the various ratings as the dependent variables, and participants’ judgments (“not enough,” “about right,” “too much”) about the amount of text, graphs, animations, and images in the PowerPoint and Prezi presentations as the independent variable. For nearly all (80 of 96) of these ANOVAs, the results were highly significant, p s < .001. In judging the amount of text, participants typically rated “too much” or “not enough” text as worse than an “about right” amount; in judging graphs, images, and animations, participants typically rated “too much” and “just right” both as equally better than “not enough.” Averaging across all rating dimensions, the text and graph effects were over twice as large as the animation and image effects; averaging across all attributes, the effects for visual ratings was over twice as large as the effects for presenter and overall ratings. Participants’ judgments about the media attributes of presentations did, therefore, relate to their overall assessments of the presenters and presentations.

Summing across PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, the modal participant indicated that there was the “about right” amount of text, graphs, animations, and images. Only 21% of participants thought there was not enough or too much text; for the other dimensions, this percentage ranged from 42–51%. More participants indicated that there was not enough text, graphs, and animations in PowerPoint presentations than Prezi presentations, with animation as the most distinguishing attribute. Table 9 presents the descriptive and inferential statistics for these variables.

As shown in Table 10 , participants’ judgments about the audiovisual attributes of the Prezi and PowerPoint presentations were associated with the decision about the business scenario. Individuals who reported that there was not enough text, graph, animation, or images tended to reject the offer for i-Mart, whereas those who reported that there was the “about right” amount of those attributes tended to accept the offer. This effect was particularly pronounced for judgments of graphs and text. Participants who reported too much text also tended to reject the offer.

In sum, participants’ perceptions of presenters and the presentations correlated with their evaluations of the amount of text, graphs, images, and animations that were included in the presentations. Presenters and presentations were rated worse if they had too much or not enough text, and not enough graphs, images, and animations; in terms of audience decision-making, presentations were less effective if they contained too much or not enough text, or not enough graphs, animations, and images. PowerPoint presentations were judged to have too little of all attributes, particularly animation.

Replicating results from Experiment 1, participants rated presentations made with Prezi as more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentations. This remained true despite participants’ preexisting bias against Prezi and the different context of Experiment 2: the audience did not view multiple presentations of different formats and presentations were prerecorded instead of live. Extending the Experiment 1 results, participants also judged Prezi presentations as better in various ways (e.g., more visually compelling, more dynamic) than PowerPoint presentations; participants even rated Prezi presenters more highly (e.g., more knowledgeable, more professional) than PowerPoint presenters.

In making decisions as corporate executives, participants were persuaded by the presentations. Compared to the baseline decisions of the control group, those in the treatment group shifted their decisions by 16.2%, 12.3%, and 8.0% depending on whether they viewed Prezi, PowerPoint, or oral presentations, respectively. The non- or marginal significance of some between-format comparisons (e.g., PowerPoint versus Prezi) is difficult to interpret. We hesitate to dismiss these differences as statistical noise given their general alignment with rating results, as well as the correlation between business decisions and presentation ratings (which do vary significantly with format). For the more objective outcome of decision-making, we can, at the very least, provisionally conclude that Prezi presentations are more effective than oral presentations, and that software-aided presentations are more effective than oral presentations.

We did not find any evidence that the presentations affected participants’ memory or understanding of the case, nor did we find evidence that certain presentation formats impacted learning more than others. Given the goals of the presentations and design of the experiment, however, we hesitate to draw any conclusions from these null results.

General discussion

The most important finding across the two experiments is easy to summarize: Participants evaluated Prezi presentations as more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentations. This finding was true for both live and prerecorded presentations, when participants rated or ranked presentations, and when participants judged multiple presentations of different formats or only one presentation in isolation. Results from Experiment 2 demonstrate that these presentations influenced participants’ core judgments about a business decision, and suggest that Prezi may benefit both behavioral and experiential outcomes. We have no evidence, however, that Prezi (or PowerPoint or oral presentations) facilitate learning in either presenters or their audience.

Several uninteresting explanations exist for the observed Prezi effects, none of which posit any specific efficacy of Prezi or ZUIs in general: namely, novelty, bias, and experimenter effects. We consider each in turn.

Novelty heavily influences both attention and memory [ 87 , 88 ], and the benefits of new media have sometimes dissipated over time—just as one would expect with novelty effects [ 3 ]. However, we found no evidence that novelty explains the observed benefits of Prezi: Participants who were less familiar with Prezi did not evaluate Prezi presentations more favorably, and only a small fraction of participants who favored Prezi explained their preference in terms of novelty. We therefore are skeptical that mere novelty can explain the observed effects.

We also considered the possibility that participants had a pre-existing bias for Prezi. This seems unlikely because presenter participants were selected based only on minimal experience with both PowerPoint and Prezi and were assigned randomly to the experimental groups; audience participants from both experiments were selected based merely on high-speed internet access, and the words “Prezi” and “PowerPoint” were not used in any audience recruitment material. In fact, both sets of participants entered the research with biases against Prezi, not for Prezi: They reported more experience with PowerPoint and oral presentations than Prezi, and perceived PowerPoint and oral presentations as more (not less) efficacious than Prezi. Thus, we reject the idea that the results simply reflect pre-existing media biases.

For many reasons, we also find it unlikely that experimenter effects—including demand characteristics (i.e., when participants conform to the experimenters’ expectations)—can explain the observed effects. First, at the outset we did not have strong hypotheses about the benefits of one format over the others. Second, the results are subtle in ways that neither we nor a demand characteristics hypothesis would predict: the effects on subjective experience diverged somewhat from the effects on decision-making, and there were no memory or comprehension effects. Third, the between-participants design of Experiment 2 (and between-participants analysis of Experiment 1 ) limited participants’ exposure to a single presentation format, thereby minimizing their ability to discern the experimental manipulation or research hypotheses. Fourth, we ensured that the presentations were equally high-quality; we did not unconsciously select Prezi presentations that happened to be higher quality than presentations in the other formats. Fifth, the random assignment of presenters to format limits the possible confounding of presenter variables with presentation formats or qualities; and no confounding with format was observed in presenters’ preexisting beliefs, prior experience, or demographics. And finally, in Experiment 2 we only explicitly mentioned or asked participants questions about Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations at the conclusion of the experiment, after collecting all key outcome data.

We therefore conclude that the observed effects are not confounds or biases, but instead reflect a true and specific benefit of Prezi over PowerPoint or, more generally, ZUIs over slideware. If, however, these experimental effects merely reveal that Prezi is more user-friendly than PowerPoint—or that PowerPoint’s default templates encourage shallow processing by “[fetishizing] the outline at the expense of the content” [ 89 ] (pB26)—then we have learned little about the practice or psychology of communication. But if these effects instead reflect intrinsic properties of ZUIs or slideware, then they reveal more interesting and general insights about effective communication.

It is difficult to understand Prezi’s benefits in terms of user-friendliness because the odds were so clearly stacked in PowerPoint’s favor. Presenters were much more experienced in using PowerPoint than Prezi and rated PowerPoint as easier to use than Prezi. Especially given the task constraints—participants only had 45 minutes to prepare for a 5-minute presentation on a relatively new, unfamiliar topic—Prezi’s user interface would have to be improbably superior to PowerPoint’s interface to overcome these handicaps. Moreover, participants’ prior experience with PowerPoint or Prezi did not correlate with their success as presenters, as one would expect under an ease-of-use explanation. Finally, audience participants did not simply favor the Prezi presentations in an even, omnibus sense—they evaluated Prezi as better in particular ways that align with the purported advantages of ZUIs over slideware. This pattern of finding makes most sense if the mechanism were at the level of media, not software.

Participants’ evaluations of Prezi were particularly telling in three ways. First, in participants’ own words (from Experiment 1 ), they frequently described Prezi as engaging , interactive , visually compelling , visually pleasing , or vivid , and PowerPoint as concise , clear , easy to follow , familiar , professional , or organized . Second, in participants’ ratings (from Experiment 2 ), the visuals from Prezi presentations were evaluated as significantly more dynamic, visually compelling, and distinctive than those from PowerPoint presentations. And third, in judging the audiovisual attributes of presentations, participants’ identified animations as both the attribute most lacking in presentations and the attribute that most distinguished Prezi from PowerPoint; furthermore, the more a presentation was judged as lacking animation, the worse it was rated. Taken together, this evidence suggests that Prezi presentations were not just better overall, but were better at engaging visually with their audience through the use of animation. Because ZUIs are defined by their panning and zooming animations—and animation is an ancillary (and frequently misused) feature of slideware—the most parsimonious explanation for the present results is in terms of ZUIs and slideware in general, not Prezi and PowerPoint in particular. The medium is not the message, but it may be the mechanism.

The animated nature of ZUIs makes more sense as possible mechanism for the observed effects when one considers relevant literature on animation. Past research has shown that animation can induce physiological and subjective arousal (e.g., [ 90 , 91 ]) and facilitate attention, learning, and task performance (e.g., [ 92 – 94 ]; but see also [ 95 , 96 ]). Most pertinently, people appear to prefer animated media over static media. Participants rate animated online advertisements as more enjoyable, persuasive, effective, and exciting than static online advertisements [ 97 , 98 ], animated websites as more likeable, engaging, and favorable than static websites [ 99 ], and animated architectural displays as clearer than static displays [ 100 ]. In an experiment of online academic lectures, participants preferred whiteboard-style animations over a slideware-style version matched for both visual and audio content [ 101 ]. Moreover, ZUI’s use of animation aligns with recommended principles for using animation effectively in presentations, which include the creation of a large virtual canvas and the use of zooming to view detail [ 102 ]. Slideware, on the other hand, encourages the use of superfluous animation in slide transitions and object entrances/exits, despite evidence that adding such “seductive details” to multimedia presentations can be counterproductive [ 72 ].

Therefore, we not only conclude that audiences prefer Prezi over PowerPoint presentations, but also conclude that their preference is rooted in an intrinsic attribute of ZUIs: panning and zooming animations. Compared to slideware’s sequential, linear transitions (and oral presentations’ total lack of visual aids), zooming and panning over a virtual canvas is a more engaging and enjoyable experience for an audience.

From this perspective, the reason that participants rated Prezi presentations as more persuasive, effective, and organized than other presentations—and Prezi presenters as more knowledgeable, professional, effective, and organized than other presenters—was because they confuse media with messages and messengers. Dual-process models of persuasion contend that opinion change occurs through not just slow deliberations grounded in logic and reason but also through fast shortcuts rooted in associations and cues [ 103 – 106 ]. If better presenters with better arguments tend to give better presentations, then an audience’s experience while viewing a presentation may shade their judgments about its presenter or argument. This is the same basic logic of research that demonstrates PowerPoint’s persuasion advantage over oral presentations [ 53 , 54 ]. Just as audiences appear more persuaded by slideware than by oral presentations, they also appear more persuaded by ZUI than by slideware presentations. But unlike past research, we do not argue that audience members use technological sophistication as a cue for argument quality [ 53 ] or presenter preparedness [ 54 ]; instead, we suggest that they use their subjective viewing experience as a heuristic for judging both presentations and presenters. Because ZUI presentations are more engaging than slideshows, ZUI presentations and presenters are judged more positively than slideshows.

Concluding remarks

Media research, including research into presentation software, is plagued methodologically by a lack of experimental control, the unjustifiable assumption that media effects are constant across individuals and content, and a failure to account for the biases of all involved: the presenters, the audiences, and the researchers. In the research reported here we strived to overcome these challenges by randomly assigning presenters and audience members to competing presentation formats, blinding them to the experimental manipulations, and sampling a sufficient array of presentations within each format.

Our conclusions about the advantages of ZUIs (such as Prezi) over slideware (such as PowerPoint) and oral presentations are, of course, tentative. Further research will need to replicate the findings across different presentation contexts, clarify whether the subjective benefits of ZUIs over slideware result in decision-making or behavioral advantages, and better investigate the precise media attributes responsible for these advantages. Like others [ 107 ], we caution against technological determinism: Presentation medium is but one of many factors that determine presentation success, and presentations that rely on any given medium can succeed or fail. Because slideware can be used to zoom and pan over a virtual canvas just as ZUIs can be used to create slideshows, the benefits of ZUIs over slideware are ultimately based on affordances: How much do certain formats encourage or enable psychologically advantageous media attributes, such as zooming and panning animations?

In many ways, it is surprising that we found any effects of presentation medium. The presentations differed in many ways aside from their format, ways that surely influenced their effectiveness: Each presentation was made by a different person (sampled from a diverse pool of participants), presenters chose what content to include in their presentation, and presenters decided how to convey that content within their assigned format. Under real-world circumstances in which presentations of different formats are actually contrasted with each other, we expect this background “noise” to be greatly reduced and impact of format correspondingly greater.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank Erin-Driver Linn, Brooke Pulitzer, and Sarah Shaughnessy of the Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching for their institutional guidance and support, Nina Cohodes, Gabe Mansur, and the staff of the Harvard Decision Sciences Laboratory for their assistance with participant testing, Michael Friedman for his feedback on pilot versions of the study protocol, and Tom Ryder for his support in adapting the multimedia case for research purposes.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by a grant from Prezi ( http://www.prezi.com ) to SMK. In the sponsored research agreement (which we are happy to provide) and in our conversations with Prezi leadership, they agreed to let us conduct the study as we wished and publish it no matter what the results revealed. Aside from funding the research, the only role that any employees of Prezi played was (as documented in the manuscript) 1) to provide us with a distribution list of Boston-area Prezi customers (8 of whom participated in the first experiment) and 2) as experts in Prezi, review the background questionnaire to ensure that we were accurately describing Prezi’s purported benefits and features (just as PowerPoint and oral presentation experts did the same). No employees at Prezi had any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. None of the authors have any professional or financial connection to Prezi or personal relationships with any Prezi employees. We do not plan to conduct any follow-up research on this topic or obtain future funding from Prezi. As evident in the manuscript, we took special care not to allow bias or demand characteristics to influence this research.

Data Availability

We use essential cookies to make Venngage work. By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.

Manage Cookies

Cookies and similar technologies collect certain information about how you’re using our website. Some of them are essential, and without them you wouldn’t be able to use Venngage. But others are optional, and you get to choose whether we use them or not.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are always on, as they’re essential for making Venngage work, and making it safe. Without these cookies, services you’ve asked for can’t be provided.

Show cookie providers

• Google Login

Functionality Cookies

These cookies help us provide enhanced functionality and personalisation, and remember your settings. They may be set by us or by third party providers.

Performance Cookies

These cookies help us analyze how many people are using Venngage, where they come from and how they're using it. If you opt out of these cookies, we can’t get feedback to make Venngage better for you and all our users.

• Google Analytics

Targeting Cookies

These cookies are set by our advertising partners to track your activity and show you relevant Venngage ads on other sites as you browse the internet.

• Google Tag Manager
• Infographics
• Daily Infographics
• Template Lists
• Graphic Design
• Graphs and Charts
• Data Visualization
• Human Resources
• Beginner Guides

Blog Graphic Design

12 Best Presentation Software for 2024

By Krystle Wong , Jan 12, 2024

Whether you’re a student, professional or entrepreneur, having access to the right presentation tools can make all the difference.

When you craft a well-executed presentation , your message becomes more memorable. You’re not just sharing information; you’re weaving a story, painting a picture and leaving a lasting impact on your audience’s minds. 

We’re living in the age of information overload, where attention spans are shorter than ever. A good presentation slide takes this into account, breaking down complex information into bite-sized chunks. It guides your audience through a logical flow, allowing them to digest information effortlessly and retain key points without feeling overwhelmed.

To help you stay ahead of the game, I’ve compiled a list of the 12 best software for presentations. These PowerPoint alternatives offer a combination of user-friendly interfaces, stunning visuals, collaboration features and innovative functionalities that will take your presentations to the next level. 

Let’s dive in and explore these top presentation software picks!

1. Venngage 

Allow me to be a little bit biased here but my top pick is none other than, you guessed it — Venngage! Venngage goes beyond just presentations to focus on data visualization and transforming complex information into visually appealing and engaging visuals. 

One of the standout features of Venngage as a presentation software is the extensive library of infographic elements. Gain access to a wide range of pre-designed elements such as icons, charts, maps as well as illustrations to simplify the process of creating data-driven and visually appealing presentations.

You don’t have to be a pro when designing with Venngage. Venngage’s drag-and-drop interface allows you to customize your presentations by simply dragging and dropping elements onto the canvas. You can tweak sizes, colors and layouts with ease, making your presentations visually cohesive and personalized, even if you’re not a design wizard. 

Just so you know, some of our features and templates are free to use and some require a small monthly fee. Sign-up is completely free, as is access to Venngage’s online drag-and-drop editor. Here’s how Venngage’s presentation maker can become your secret weapon in the quest for presentation success.

Vast selection of templates

Venngage boasts an extensive library of professionally designed templates, catering to a wide range of industries and presentation purposes. Whether you’re creating a marketing report, educational presentation or business pitch, Venngage’s presentation tool offers templates that provide a solid foundation for your designs. 

Save 20+ hours of designing with Venngage’s fully customizable, pre-designed infographic templates. These presentation templates provide a good foundation with well-structured layouts and visually appealing aesthetics. 

Data visualization made easy

Venngage simplifies the process of data visualization, making it accessible to users of all backgrounds. With a few clicks, you can transform dull statistics into visually engaging charts and graphs that tell a compelling story.

Seamless real-time in-editor collaboration tools

Venngage brings teamwork to the next level with our seamless collaboration tools designed to foster collaboration across teams, departments and the entire organization. Whether you’re in the same room or across the globe, Venngage enables real-time collaboration that makes working together becomes a breeze. 

Consistently brand your designs with smart Autobrand features

Effortlessly infuse your presentation slides with your brand’s colors, fonts and logos with Venngage’s My Brand Kit . Upload your brand assets and create engaging presentations by applying your branding to any template you create on Venngage.

Who is it for

Marketers, designers, educators and businesses that require data-driven and visually appealing presentations.

Key features 

Infographic elements, data visualization tools, collaboration options, customizable templates.

Create your first 5 designs with Venngage for free and upgrade to a premium or business plan for $10 USD/month per user and $24 USD/month per user to enjoy premium features. For larger teams who need extra support, controls and security, the enterprise plan starts from $499 USD/month for 10+ seats.

Additionally, there are also plans available for classrooms priced at $99 USD/year for up to 35 students per instructor. Non profit organizations can also apply for a nonprofit discount to any Venngage plan.

2. Microsoft PowerPoint

Source: Screenshot from Microsoft PowerPoint

Even with dozens of presentation software and tools out there, PowerPoint presentations have stood the test of time as one of the best presentation software. In fact, 89% of people still use PowerPoint presentations over competitor services . 

Whether you’re a student, teacher, business professional or just a creative soul, PowerPoint’s user-friendly interface allows both beginners and experienced users to create presentations with ease.

PowerPoint delivers captivating and engaging presentations through its advanced animation and transition effects. You can create interactive PowerPoint presentations by captivating your audience and guiding them through your content with seamless transitions and eye-catching animations. 

Seamless integration with other Microsoft Office tools is another significant advantage of PowerPoint as a presentation software. As part of the Microsoft Office suite, PowerPoint effortlessly integrates with other familiar applications such as Word and Excel. This integration allows you to incorporate charts, graphs and written content from these tools directly into your presentation. 

However, collaboration features in PowerPoint can be somewhat limited compared to dedicated collaboration platforms. While you can share and co-edit presentations with others, the collaboration options may not be as robust as those offered by specialized presentation tools.

Suitable for individuals, students, educators and businesses of all sizes.

Customizable templates, multimedia support, extensive slide editing options, robust animations and transitions.

You can subscribe to PowerPoint as part of your Microsoft 365 subscription with various plans tailored for businesses, ranging from $6 to $22 USD/month. Additionally, there is also the option to purchase an unbundled PowerPoint account separately, priced at $159.99 USD.

3. Google Slides

Source: Screenshot from Google Slides

Unlike PowerPoint which requires file sharing and manual syncing for teamwork, Google Slides enables real-time collaboration and easy access from any device with an internet connection. 

Google Slides shines in its seamless collaboration capabilities. Multiple users can work on the same presentation simultaneously, enabling real-time editing and fostering efficient teamwork. The integrated commenting feature on Google Slides allows for shared feedback and discussions, enhancing collaboration even further.

Google Slides’ cloud-based storage and auto-saving feature ensures that your work is constantly saved, minimizing the risk of losing progress or important changes. No more panicking over unsaved slides and changes. 

But that also means that Google Slides heavily relies on an internet connection for full functionality and access is more limited compared to desktop-based software. Although an offline mode is available, Google Slides has certain limitations and may not provide the same level of functionality as when connected to the internet.

Templates and customization features-wise, Google Slides also have fewer design options compared to other presentation tools. This may limit the level of visual creativity and flexibility for those seeking intricate designs or specialized effects.

Ideal for remote teams, educators, students and anyone looking for easy collaboration and access from any device.

Real-time collaboration, shared commenting, offline mode and built-in sharing options.

Google Slides is accessible to all individuals with a Google account at no cost, providing all users with access to its full range of features. However, for businesses and teams looking for additional organizational capabilities, there are subscription plans available ranging from $6 to $18 USD/month.

4. Keynote (for Mac users)

Source: Screenshot from Keynote

For Apple users, Keynote is a presentation tool designed exclusively for your Apple devices and is available on macOS, iOS and iPadOS. Keynote is known for its sleek and intuitive interface, reflecting Apple’s design aesthetics. 

It offers visually appealing templates, animations, and transitions, allowing users to create polished and modern-looking presentations. Keynote users can seamlessly incorporate images, videos, audio files and interactive elements into their presentations. The presentation software also includes a wide range of animations and transitions, enabling smooth and cinematic effects that bring slides to life.

Keynote presentations is known for its seamless integration within the Apple ecosystem. It works effortlessly with other Apple applications, allowing users to combine different elements and data from various sources. Presentations created in Keynote can be easily shared and accessed across Apple devices, ensuring a consistent experience for both the presenter and the audience.

Additionally, Keynote as a presentation software offers collaborative editing capabilities, enabling multiple users to work on the same presentation simultaneously. Users can share their presentations with others, who can then provide feedback, make edits and contribute to the project in real-time.

That said, since Keynote is exclusively designed for Apple devices, it may not be accessible or fully compatible with non-Apple platforms. Hence, sharing presentations created in Keynote with users on different platforms may require exporting or converting the files to a compatible format, which can lead to potential formatting issues or loss of certain features.

Mac users, creatives, professionals, educators and anyone who wants visually stunning presentations.

Elegant templates, advanced multimedia options, cinematic transitions and collaborative editing.

Keynote is available for free on Apple devices, including macOS, iOS, and iPadOS. As it comes pre-installed with these devices, users can access and use Keynote without any additional cost.

Source: Screenshot from Prezi

Known for its distinctive zooming presentation style, Prezi revolutionizes the way you create presentations by offering a visually engaging and non-linear approach. 

One of Prezi’s renowned features is its unique zooming and transition effects, allowing presenters to navigate through a virtual canvas seamlessly. This dynamic presentation style enhances engagement by creating a sense of movement and spatial relationship between ideas.

Moreover, Prezi offers cloud-based collaboration, making it easy for multiple users to collaborate on a presentation in real-time. This feature facilitates seamless teamwork, enabling users to collectively develop and refine their presentations regardless of their physical locations.

Prezi presentations also include interactive elements, such as embedded videos, images and hyperlinks. Utilizing these elements would allow presenters to create interactive presentations and engage their audience on a deeper level.

However, Prezi has a steeper learning curve compared to more traditional presentation tools. Users may require some time and practice to become proficient in navigating the canvas, creating smooth transitions and effectively utilizing all of Prezi’s features.

Creative professionals, educators and individuals who want to create visually captivating and non-linear presentations.

Zooming presentation style, interactive elements, cloud-based collaboration and reusable templates.

For individuals & business professionals

Basics: Create and share up to 5 visual projects for free

Standard: Starting at $5 USD/month

Plus: Starting at $12 USD/month

Premium: Starting at $16 USD/month

Teams: Starting at $19 USD/month per user (billed annually)

For Students & Educators

EDU Plus: Starting at $3/month

EDU Pro: Starting at $4/month

EDU Teams: Enquiry required with Prezi sales team

Source: Screenshot from Canva

One of the great things about Canva as a presentation tool is its user-friendly interface, which makes it super easy to use even if you’re not a design pro. You can simply drag and drop elements to create your presentation slides without breaking a sweat.

Canva’s vast collection of pre-designed templates caters to various purposes and occasions. The availability of these templates allows users to jumpstart their design projects with professional-looking layouts, saving valuable time and effort.

For businesses or educational institutions working on group projects or marketing campaigns, Canva also offers collaboration features that enhance teamwork and co-creation. Users can invite team members or clients to collaborate on a design project, enabling real-time feedback and efficient design processes. 

While Canva does offer some basic slide transition effects, the range and customization options for transitions may be limited compared to dedicated presentation software like Microsoft PowerPoint or Apple Keynote. 

Individuals, students, small businesses and startups seeking professional-looking marketing materials and presentations.

Extensive template options, intuitive drag-and-drop interface, ability to share presentations as downloadable files or online links and built-in multimedia support for adding videos , images, and audio to slides.

The free version of Canva provides a wide range of features and resources, with the only limitations being the use of premium resources that can be acquired either through separate purchases or by subscribing to the Canva Pro plan. The Canva Pro plan is available for $12.99 USD per month or $119.99 USD per year.

For collaborative purposes, Canva Teams is available at a price of $14.99 USD per month, with an additional charge of $14.99 USD per month for every team member beyond the initial five.

7. Adobe Express

Source: Screenshot from Adobe Express

As part of the Adobe Creative Cloud suite, Adobe Express is a presentation software that offers a simplified and user-friendly interface. With its intuitive interface, Adobe Express allows users to create visually stunning presentations with ease. Users can access both design professionals and individuals without extensive design experience.

One of the notable advantages of Adobe Express is its seamless integration with other Adobe products, such as Photoshop and Illustrator. This integration enables users to leverage the power of these industry-standard design tools within their presentations, providing access to advanced design features and a vast library of high-quality assets. 

Adobe Express is also great for creating interactive presentations. Its extensive multimedia support, allowing users to incorporate videos, audio files and interactive elements to keep your audience engaged.

That being said,  some of its advanced features may require familiarity with other Adobe tools, which can be challenging for beginners who are not already familiar with the Adobe Creative Cloud ecosystem.

Designers, creative professionals, individuals and businesses seeking professional-grade presentation design.

Professional design options, multimedia support, easy integration with other Adobe products and cloud-based collaboration.

While the free version for Adobe Express includes all the core features, users can gain access to premium templates and features when they upgrade to the Premium subscription for $9.99 USD/month. 

For businesses and teams, Adobe provides tailored plans that include additional features like collaboration tools, centralized license management and enterprise-level support. The pricing for these plans depends on the number of licenses and the specific needs of the organization. It’s best to consult with Adobe or their authorized resellers to get accurate pricing information for business plans.

8. Haiku Deck

Source: Haiku Deck

Haiku Deck is all about visual storytelling, offering a simple and minimalist approach to designing presentations. With its clean and minimalist templates, Haiku Deck makes it a breeze to create presentations that focus on eye-catching images.

Haiku Deck is a user-friendly presentation software that offers a straightforward and intuitive interface. It’s designed to be easily accessible on both computers and mobile devices, giving you the flexibility to create quick and practical presentations on the go.

Plus, the presentation tool seamlessly integrates with image search engines, making it a piece of cake to find and add high-quality visuals that enhance the overall look and feel of your presentation.

However,if you’re looking for advanced features like complex animations or interactive elements, you might not find them here. While the clean and minimalist templates are gorgeous, they don’t offer as much flexibility for customization.

Educators, individuals and professionals who appreciate the power of visual storytelling and minimalist design.

Image-focused templates, easy-to-use interface, cloud-based collaboration and seamless image search integration.

Haiku Deck offers a free trial that allows you to experience the software with one presentation. If you decide to upgrade, they have different pricing plans available. Additionally, Haiku Deck also offers special pricing to qualifying nonprofit organizations, students and educators.

The Pro plans are available at $9.99 per month with annual billing or $19.99 per month with monthly billing. For those seeking advanced features, the Premium plans are priced at $29.99 per month.

Source: Screenshot from Ludus

Ludus brings together the best of both worlds by offering the traditional slide deck format along with interactive and multimedia elements that take presentations to a whole new level.

The presentation software is rich in multimedia capabilities, allowing users to seamlessly integrate videos, audio and elements to create interactive presentations that captivate the audience.

Ludus offers unique presentation tools that enable users to incorporate interactive elements like clickable buttons, hover effects and embedded web content, enabling a more dynamic and engaging presentation experience. 

This makes Ludus a great choice for designers, creatives, marketing professionals, and anyone who wants to create interactive and visually appealing presentations that leave a lasting impression. Collaboration is another area where Ludus excels. The software offers collaborative editing, allowing multiple users to edit presentations simultaneously. 

However, it’s worth mentioning that Ludus has relatively limited templates compared to some other presentation software options. While the customization options are vast, users might find themselves starting from scratch or investing more time in creating the initial design. Additionally, for individuals new to the platform, there might be a learning curve involved in fully harnessing all of Ludus’ features and capabilities.

Designers, creatives, marketing professionals and anyone looking for interactive and visually appealing presentations.

Interactive and multimedia elements, collaborative editing, extensive design customization, real-time comments and feedback.

Ludus offers a starting price of $14.99 USD/month per user for teams consisting of 1-15 members with all features included. For larger teams requiring additional licenses, Ludus encourages reaching out for more information on pricing. It’s worth noting that Ludus provides a 30-day free trial, allowing users to explore the platform and its features before committing to a subscription.

10. Slidebean

Source: Screenshot from Slidebean

Slidebean offers a unique approach to slide design by automating the process and simplifying the creation of well-designed presentations. With its automation features, Slidebean streamlines the design process, saving users valuable time and effort.

The highlight of Slidebean is its automated slide design functionality. Using artificial intelligence (AI), the software generates visually appealing slide layouts based on the content provided. Slidebean also offers collaboration options, allowing multiple team members to work on a presentation simultaneously. 

Another advantage of Slidebean is its AI-powered content suggestions. The software intelligently analyzes the presentation content and provides helpful suggestions for improving the messaging and overall flow. This feature ensures that users can effectively communicate their ideas and engage their audience. 

Unlike Ludus, Slidebean may not cater to users who prefer extensive customization and control over their slide layouts. Certain advanced features are only available in premium plans, which may require an upgrade for those seeking more advanced functionality.

Startups, entrepreneurs, small businesses, and individuals who want to create polished presentations quickly.

Automated design, content suggestions, collaboration tools and pitch deck-specific templates.

The free version offers limited functionalities, but it provides a sufficient opportunity to experience Slidebean’s capabilities and understand its workflow. However, to export your presentation and access advanced features, upgrading to a higher plan is necessary. 

The all-access plan is available at $228 USD/year, while additional services such as startup expert consultations and pitch deck and financial model services are available for separate purchase. 

11. Beautiful.ai

Source: Screenshot from Beautiful.ai

Beautiful.ai aims to simplify the process of creating visually stunning and professional-looking slides with minimal effort. One of the notable strengths of the presentation software is its collection of smart templates and design suggestions. 

Their templates are intelligently designed to provide visually appealing layouts, saving users valuable time and effort in creating presentations. Unlike other types of presentation software, the platform leverages AI-powered technology to offer layout optimization, ensuring that slide elements are positioned optimally for maximum impact.

Beautiful.ai also offers time-saving features that streamline the presentation creation process. The software automatically adjusts the layout and formatting as users add or modify content, eliminating the need for manual adjustments. 

As the software provides smart templates and design suggestions, customization options may be somewhat limited. Users may find that certain design elements or layout adjustments are not as flexible as they would like. 

Individuals, startups and professionals who want visually impressive presentations without extensive design skills.

Smart templates, automated design suggestions, AI-powered layout optimization and easy slide customization.

Beautiful.ai provides two subscription options for users. The Pro plan is available at a monthly cost of $12 USD /month, while the Team plan is priced at $40 USD/month. Both plans are billed annually. You can also subscribe to the monthly subscription for ad hoc projects and gain access to all pro features for $45 USD/month (billed monthly). 

There is a 14-day free trial period that allows users to thoroughly test and explore the features and capabilities of the tool before committing to a subscription.

Source: Screenshot from Pitch

Pitch is a modern video presentation maker that stands out with its collaborative and iterative approach to presentation creation.

One of the key strengths of Pitch lies in its collaborative features. The presentation software provides robust collaboration tools that allow team members to work together in real-time. This makes it easy for users to collaborate on presentation content, provide feedback and make revisions collectively.

Pitch boasts an extensive slide library, offering a wide range of professionally designed templates to choose from. These templates serve as a foundation for creating visually stunning presentations while providing a starting point that saves time and ensures a polished look.

The availability of diverse templates caters to different industries, topics and presentation styles, allowing users to create presentations for their needs.

Seamless integration with project management tools is another advantage of Pitch. The software integrates well with popular project management platforms, enabling users to streamline their workflow by syncing tasks, deadlines and other project-related information with their presentations. 

For teams, startups and businesses that value collaboration, feedback and the ability to iterate on their presentations

Collaboration tools, version control, project management integration and template library.

Users can create unlimited presentations and enjoy the starter plan for free or upgrade to Pro for $8 USD/month, billed annually. 

There you have it — the top 12 best presentation tools for the year! Whether you value simplicity, collaboration, automation, design versatility or data visualization, these presentation software examples have a solution out there for your future presentations.

Got your mind set on your to-go presentation software? Great! Now it’s time to start creating your slides and ace that presentation. 

• PowerPoint Themes
• Latest PowerPoint Templates
• Best PowerPoint Templates
• Free PowerPoint Templates
• Simple PowerPoint Templates
• PowerPoint Backgrounds
• Project Charter
• Project Timeline
• Project Team
• Project Status
• Market Analysis
• Marketing Funnel
• Market Segmentation
• Target Customer
• Marketing Mix
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Resource Planning
• Recruitment
• Employee Onboarding
• Company Profile
• Mission Vision
• Meet The Team
• Problem & Solution
• Business Model
• Business Case
• Business Strategy
• Business Review
• Leadership Team
• Balance Sheet
• Income Statement
• Cash Flow Statement
• Executive Summary
• 30 60 90 Day Plan
• SWOT Analysis
• Flow Charts
• Gantt Charts
• Text Tables
• Infographics
• Google Slides Templates
• Presentation Services
• Ask Us To Make Slides
• Data Visualization Services
• Business Presentation Tips
• PowerPoint Tutorials
• Google Slides Tutorials
• Presentation Resources

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Using Google Slides In Presentations

Have you been pondering whether to put time into Google Slides? Google Slides is gaining popularity as an alternative to Microsoft PowerPoint because of innovative features offered by Google. Is it worthwhile to make the change, though? We’ve listed the pros and cons of using Google Slides so you can make a well-informed decision. 

Google Slides offers several advantages, including its web-based availability and collaboration features. Is Google Slides the ideal presentation programme for you? Let’s look at the advantages and disadvantages to help you decide.

10 Reasons Why You Should Use Google Slides

Google Slides is a popular cloud-based presentation software among consumers and corporations due to its many advantages. Because of these qualities, it is often considered among the best-presenting programmes available. The top 10 advantages of using Google Slides for creating beckoning presentations are as follows:

• Simple to work with

Collaborative

• Accessible from anywhere
• Highly Cost effective

Wide Choice of Customization

• Adding Multimedia with ease
• Easy to integrate with other platforms by Google
• Accessibility features

Backup of Edits

Simple to work with, accessible from anywhere, highly cost-effective.

Adding Multimedia with Ease

Easy to integrate with other platforms by google, accessibility features.

READ MORE: Microsoft PowerPoint V/s Google Slides

5 Drawbacks Of Using Google Slides For Your Presentations

While there are many advantages of Google Slides, there are also some disadvantages of using this cloud-based presentation software. Users should weigh the pros and cons of Google Slides carefully to determine whether it is the right tool for their needs. Here are the five disadvantages of using Google Slides for presentations:

• Limited offline functionality
• Potential formatting issues
• Security concerns
• Fewer advanced features and customization options
• Dependency on internet speed

Limited Offline Functionality

Potential formatting issues, security concerns, fewer advanced features and customization options, dependency on internet speed, when to choose google slides for presentations.

Google Slides is a great place to start if you’re looking for a free alternative to expensive presentation software. Besides the pros and cons of Google Slides, as discussed above, it is a powerful presentation tool thanks to its intuitive design, cloud-based availability, and collaborative features. Some examples of when it would be a good idea to use Google Slides are as follows:

• Collaborative Projects Made Simple: Whether you’re working on a group presentation or a school project, Google Slides lets multiple participants collaborate and make real-time changes.
• Accessible Online Projects: Since Google Slides is hosted on Google Cloud, it is accessible from any internet-connected device, making it a perfect choice for producing online presentations that can be shared with people worldwide.
• Suitable for Basic Presentations: Because of its user-friendly design, Google Slides is ideal for generating presentations in less time, making it more convenient. 
• Multimedia Integration: Google Slides provides straightforward methods for adding elements such as photographs and videos to presentations, making it an effective tool for organising and illustrating content in a presentation.

MUST READ: Advantages And Disadvantages Of Using PowerPoint In Presentations.

Get the Most Out of Google Slides: Profession-Based Use Cases

Google Slides has become popular as a flexible and user-friendly presenting tool across various professions. We’ve produced a table that covers profession-specific use-cases to help you understand how Google Slides can be utilised for your presentation needs. 

In conclusion, the slides you make for a presentation have the potential to alter the outcome completely. It can liven up even the most mundane of presentation subjects. Therefore, the presentation software you employ is crucial. Your circumstances, needs, comfort level, and money are all factors to consider when deciding on a presenting app. Ultimately, whether to use Google Slides for presentations depends on your specific needs, and weighing the pros and cons of using Google Slides will help determine if it’s the right tool for your job.

Can I Use Google Slides Without An Internet Connection?

Is google slides safe to use for sensitive information, how do google slides compare to other presentation software, is it possible to export a google slides presentation to other formats.

People Are Also Reading:

• How To Use Google Slides | Google Slides Tutorial
• SlideUpLift Launches Premium Google Slides Templates
• 9 Best Presentation Ideas That Your Viewers Will Adore
• Learn How To Convert Presentations From Google Slides To PowerPoint
• 6 Types Of Presentation You Must Know (+ Tips)

Privacy Overview

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

• 24/7 Live Chat

+1 877 315 1713

Find anything you need

You have %itemCount% in your cart. Total being %total%

Compare Microsoft PowerPoint vs Pitch Presentation Software

The battle between Microsoft PowerPoint and Pitch is nothing short of epic in modern presentations. Choosing the right presentation software becomes paramount as professionals, entrepreneurs, and educators seek to captivate audiences. Here, we dive deep into the showdown, empowering you with insights to make an informed choice.

Ready to transform your presentations? Let's embark on a journey of discovery. Explore the strengths and weaknesses of PowerPoint and Pitch, unlocking the secrets to crafting compelling visual narratives. Embrace this opportunity to revolutionize your presentation game. Your audience awaits – let's embark on this enlightening expedition together. 

Table of Contents

What it is, features and functionality, microsoft powerpoint, design and customization, collaboration and sharing, pros and cons, choosing your presentation ally, final thoughts.

Microsoft PowerPoint equips you with an easy-to-navigate interface, many design templates, and animation options. Conversely, Pitch shines with collaborative prowess, AI-driven design, impressive data visualization, and interactive capabilities.

Choose your presentation ally based on your needs - whether you seek user-friendly design or advanced collaborative features, both platforms offer unique strengths to elevate your presentations.

• User-Friendly Interface:

Microsoft PowerPoint offers an intuitive interface, making presentation creation a breeze. It's designed for easy use, allowing you to craft impactful slides effortlessly. Each element serves a purpose in crafting visually appealing presentations from the Title Bar to the Slide Window.

• Rich Template Library:

With PowerPoint's vast templates, you can quickly choose layouts, fonts, and styles that resonate with your content. Templates streamline design, ensuring your presentations look polished and professional.

• Dynamic Animation and Transitions:

PowerPoint empowers you to add animation and transitions to individual elements or slides, enhancing engagement. Transitions smoothly guide your audience from one slide to the next, while animations bring elements to life.

• Collaborative Editing Tools:

Pitch introduces collaborative prowess, enabling teams to shape pitch decks collectively. AI integration aids in designing compelling visuals that effectively convey your startup's essence to potential investors. 

• Masterful Data Visualization:

Pitch's advanced data visualization leverages charts and graphs to simplify complex data. This visualization technique translates intricate information into clear, understandable displays, allowing readers to grasp insights swiftly.

• Interactive Functionality:

Pitch's offline capabilities empower you to create, edit, and collaborate on presentations even without an internet connection. It's a versatile tool for seamless productivity, ensuring you can work on your projects from anywhere.

Microsoft PowerPoint offers design flexibility through its "Design Ideas" tool and multimedia integration, enabling you to create engaging, visually rich presentations. On the other hand, Pitch leverages AI to infuse modern aesthetics into pitch decks, while emphasizing consistency and branding to elevate your startup's identity. 

Whether you're seeking versatile design options or aligning with your brand's essence, both platforms provide unique ways to enhance your presentation's visual impact.

Design Flexibility:

Microsoft PowerPoint introduces "Design Ideas" or PowerPoint Designer, a nifty tool that transforms your content into visually captivating slides. This feature suggests layout ideas, using your text and images, to enhance the aesthetics of your presentation. 

To craft an engaging presentation, consider setting a clear goal, structuring content effectively, using high-contrast colors, selecting readable fonts, and employing bullet points for concise information.

Graphic Elements and Media Integration:

In PowerPoint, you're not limited to static text and images. Multimedia presentations leverage diverse digital communication forms, such as video, interactive slides, audio clips, and music, to convey messages effectively. 

The platform encourages creativity by allowing you to combine images, audio, and video seamlessly. Each slide becomes a canvas to reinforce your message or guide your audience visually, making it particularly beneficial for visual learners.

• Modern Aesthetics:

Pitch boasts modern aesthetics powered by AI. Algorithms analyze your business model and value proposition to create compelling pitch decks. These decks effectively communicate your startup concept to potential investors, harnessing the persuasive potential of sophisticated design. 

• Consistency and Branding:

Pitch prioritizes consistency and branding. It ensures your pitch decks align with your visual identity and brand guidelines. This coherence fosters professionalism and trustworthiness in your presentations, resonating with investors and stakeholders.

Microsoft PowerPoint offers cloud-integrated collaboration and co-authoring capabilities for effective teamwork. On the other hand, Pitch empowers you with real-time collaboration, complete with instant messaging and videoconferencing, while facilitating seamless feedback through its commenting features. 

Both platforms enhance group productivity and communication, ensuring your presentation endeavors are efficient and impactful.

• Cloud Integration:

PowerPoint simplifies sharing and collaboration through cloud integration. Click "Share" on the ribbon to initiate collaboration, add collaborators' names or emails, and set permissions. You can include a message and hit "Send." This feature streamlines teamwork and ensures everyone is on the same page, regardless of location.

• Co-Authoring Capabilities:

Collaboration is seamless with co-authoring in PowerPoint. Multiple individuals can work on it once you've shared a file. Colored flags indicate each person's editing location. This dynamic functionality is particularly valuable with Microsoft 365, OneDrive, or SharePoint, allowing real-time teamwork on presentations, spreadsheets, and documents.

• Real-Time Collaboration:

Pitch revolutionizes collaboration with lightning-fast deck creation. Its smart editing features maintain your brand essence while facilitating swift modifications. Real-time analytics provide insights as you craft your presentation. This real-time collaboration extends to instant messaging, chat rooms, videoconferencing, and shared document editing, ensuring seamless communication.

• Commenting and Feedback Features:

In Pitch, effective feedback is at your fingertips. Commenting on specific elements and providing feedback is effortless, promoting collaborative refinement. This fosters an iterative process, ensuring your pitch deck evolves into its most compelling form.

Microsoft PowerPoint offers broad accessibility and collaboration, with design flexibility and various export options. Its drawbacks include technical glitches and potential monotony. 

Pitch shines with real-time collaboration, and expert templates but could benefit from improved analytics and a broader template selection. Both tools have strengths and limitations, allowing you to choose based on your specific presentation needs and priorities.

Advantages:

• Ubiquity : PowerPoint's widespread use makes it accessible to a wide audience.
• Collaborative Approach : It facilitates teamwork by allowing multiple contributors to work on a single presentation.
• Design Flexibility : You can create your unique designs or choose from existing templates.
• Versatile Uses : PowerPoint serves various purposes, from educational presentations to business pitches.
• Multiple File Exports : You can export presentations in various formats, enhancing compatibility.

Limitations:

• Technical Glitches : PowerPoint is prone to technical issues during presentations.
• Data Usage : Media-rich presentations can lead to heavy data consumption.
• Potential Monotony : Overreliance on PowerPoint may lead to unengaging presentations.
• Presenter Dependency : Some presenters excessively rely on slides, diminishing audience engagement.
• Presentation Overload : Overuse of presentations can lead to information overload.
• Real-Time Collaboration : Pitch prioritizes seamless teamwork, intuitive design, and smart workflows for stunning presentations.
• Expert Templates : Templates crafted by professionals inspire creativity and facilitate efficient content creation.
• Enhanced Analytics Needed : More detailed analytics for viewer engagement could enhance the platform's utility.
• Template Variety : A wider range of templates could cater to diverse presentation needs.
• Automated Play Time : An automatic playtime feature would enhance presentation flow.
• Consistency Across Platforms : A uniform feature set across different platforms could optimize the user experience.
• Expanded Shape Gallery : Adding more shapes to the gallery would bolster design possibilities.

Your choice hinges on your specific needs and goals. PowerPoint offers familiarity and design flexibility, while Pitch brings modern aesthetics and collaborative capabilities to the forefront. Evaluate your requirements and tailor your decision to match your presentation's purpose and your audience's expectations. 

A. Factors to Consider

When deciding between Microsoft PowerPoint and Pitch for your presentation needs, several crucial factors come into play:

• Ease of Use : PowerPoint's familiarity and user-friendly interface suit those seeking straightforward presentation creation.
• Collaboration : If real-time collaboration and seamless teamwork are top priorities, Pitch's capabilities may be more appealing.
• Design Versatility : PowerPoint's "Design Ideas" can be a game-changer for visually captivating presentations.
• Brand Identity : Pitch emphasizes branding consistency, making it ideal for startups or businesses looking to maintain a distinct visual identity.
• Presentation Type : Consider the nature of your presentation - educational, business pitch, or creative showcase - as this could influence your choice.

B. Tailoring to Your Audience

Understanding your audience is key to selecting the right tool:

PowerPoint : Choose it when your audience is familiar with traditional presentation formats, such as educational settings or corporate environments.

Pitch : Opt for Pitch if your audience includes investors or stakeholders who appreciate modern aesthetics and innovative design.

C. The Ideal Scenarios for Each Tool

Microsoft PowerPoint : It shines when you need to convey information clearly and concisely, and when collaborative features are less critical. Ideal for educational presentations, business reports, or sharing ideas internally.

Pitch : Perfect for startups seeking to impress potential investors with sleek pitch decks. Also great for creative projects where design plays a pivotal role and real-time collaboration is a must.

Whether you choose the familiarity and versatility of Microsoft PowerPoint or the contemporary aesthetics and real-time collaboration of Pitch, the aim remains the same: to elevate your presentation game. Leverage the features, customization, and collaborative potential to captivate your audience and convey your message effectively. 

Whichever path you tread, both tools empower you to create presentations that resonate, inspire, and leave a lasting impact. So, seize the opportunity, harness the power of technology, and present with confidence, knowing that your chosen ally will help you shine on any stage.

One more thing

If you have a second, please share this article on your socials; someone else may benefit too. 

Subscribe to our newsletter and be the first to read our future articles, reviews, and blog post right in your email inbox. We also offer deals, promotions, and updates on our products and share them via email. You won’t miss one.

Related Articles 

» 11 Best Microsoft PowerPoint Alternatives and Comparisons » Unveiling the Power of Microsoft PowerPoint vs Piktochart Visual » Microsoft PowerPoint vs TulyOffice Presentation

1591 McKenzie Way, Point Roberts, WA 98281, United Sates

[email protected]

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy & Cookies

© SoftwareKeep 2023 | All right reserved

• American Express
• Diners Club

Please SAVE to make app work

• Onsite training

3,000,000+ delegates

15,000+ clients

1,000+ locations

• KnowledgePass
• Log a ticket

01344203999 Available 24/7

Advantages and Disadvantages of Presentation

Exploring the 'Advantages and Disadvantages of Presentation,' this blog explores how presentations can effectively communicate ideas yet sometimes hinder creativity. It discusses the ease of conveying complex information visually and the potential for engaging audiences but also considers the challenges of over-reliance on visuals and potential misinterpretation.

Exclusive 40% OFF

Training Outcomes Within Your Budget!

We ensure quality, budget-alignment, and timely delivery by our expert instructors.

Share this Resource

• Effective Communication Skills
• Presenting with Impact Training
• Interpersonal Skills Training Course
• Effective Presentation Skills & Techniques
• Public Speaking Course

Table of Contents  

1) What is a Presentation: A brief introduction 

2) Advantages of Presentations 

3) Disadvantages of Presentations 

4) How to make a successful Presentation? 

5) Conclusion 

What is a Presentation: A brief introduction  

A Presentation refers to a method of conveying information, ideas, or data to an audience using visual aids and spoken words. It is a formal or informal communication tool used in various settings, such as business meetings, educational environments, conferences, or public speaking engagements. 

During a Presentation, the presenter uses visual elements like slides, charts, graphs, images, and multimedia to support and enhance their spoken content. The goal of a Presentation is to engage the audience, effectively communicate the message, and leave a lasting impact on the listeners. You can ace your presentation skill by understanding various presentation skills interview questions and answers . It will expand your horizon to elevate your skills. 

Presentation Skills can be used to cover a wide variety of Presentations, from business proposals and academic research to sales pitches and motivational speeches.The success of a Presentation depends on the presenter's ability to organize the content coherently, engage the audience, and deliver the information in a clear and compelling manner, showcasing strong principles of presentation skills. Therefore, it is essential to understand the elements of presentation .

Unlock your full potential as a presenter with our Presentation Skills Training Course. Join now!  

Advantages of Presentations  

Effective communication  

One of the primary advantages of Presentations is their ability to facilitate effective communication. Whether you're addressing a small group of colleagues or a large audience at a conference, Presentations help you to convey your message clearly and succinctly. By structuring your content and using visuals, you can ensure that your key points are highlighted and easily understood by the audience. 

Visual appeal  

"Seeing is believing," and Presentations capitalise on this aspect of human psychology. The use of visuals, such as charts, graphs, images, and videos, enhances the overall appeal of the content. These visual aids not only make the information more engaging but also help reinforce the main ideas, making the Presentation more memorable for the audience. 

Engaging the audience  

Captivating your audience's attention is crucial for effective communication. Presentations provide ample opportunities to engage your listeners through various means. By incorporating storytelling, anecdotes, and real-life examples, you can nurture an emotional connection with your audience. Additionally, interactive elements like polls, quizzes, and group activities keep the audience actively involved throughout the Presentation. 

Simplifying complex information  

Complex ideas and data can often be overwhelming, making it challenging to convey them effectively. However, Presentations excel in simplifying intricate information. By breaking down complex concepts into digestible and interconnected slides, you can present the information in a logical sequence, ensuring that the audience grasps the content more easily. 

Persuasive impact  

Presentations are powerful tools for persuasion and influence. Whether you're convincing potential clients to invest in your product, advocating for a particular cause, or delivering a motivational speech, a well-crafted Presentation can sway the audience's opinions and inspire action. The combination of visual and verbal elements enables you to make a compelling case for your ideas, leaving a lasting impact on the listeners. 

Versatility in delivery methods  

Another advantage of Presentations lies in their flexibility and versatility in terms of delivery methods. Gone are the days when Presentations were limited to in-person meetings. Today, technology allows presenters to reach a wider audience through various platforms, including webinars, online videos, and virtual conferences. This adaptability makes Presentations an ideal choice for modern communication needs. 

Enhanced understanding and retention  

When information is presented in a visually appealing and structured manner, it aids in better understanding and retention. Human brains process visuals faster and more effectively than plain text, making Presentations an ideal medium for conveying complex concepts. The combination of visual elements and spoken words create a multi-sensory experience, leading to increased information retention among the audience. 

Professionalism and credibility  

In professional settings, well-designed Presentations lend an air of credibility and professionalism to the presenter and the topic being discussed. A thoughtfully crafted Presentation shows that the presenter has put effort into preparing and organising the content, which in turn enhances the audience's trust and receptiveness to the information presented. 

Take your Presentations to the next level with our Effective Presentation Skills & Techniques Course. Sign up today!  

Disadvantages of Presentations  

Time-consuming  

Creating a compelling Presentation can be a time-consuming process. From researching and gathering relevant information to designing visually appealing slides, a significant amount of effort goes into ensuring that the content is well-structured and impactful. This time investment can be challenging, especially when presenters have tight schedules or are faced with last-minute Presentation requests. 

Technical glitches  

Presentations heavily rely on technology, and technical glitches can quickly turn a well-prepared Presentation into a frustrating experience. Projectors may malfunction, slides might not load correctly, or audiovisual components may fail to work as expected. Dealing with such technical issues during a Presentation can disrupt the flow and distract both the presenter and the audience. 

Overdependence on technology  

In some cases, presenters may become overly reliant on the visuals and technology, neglecting the importance of direct engagement with the audience. Overloaded slides with excessive text can make presenters read directly from the slides, undermining the personal connection and interaction with the listeners. This overdependence on technology can lead to a lack of spontaneity and authenticity during the Presentation. 

Lack of interactivity  

Traditional Presentations, particularly those delivered in large auditoriums, may lack interactivity and real-time feedback. In comparison, modern Presentation formats can incorporate interactive elements; not all Presentations provide opportunities for audience participation or discussions. This one-sided communication can lead to reduced engagement and limited opportunities for clarifying doubts or addressing queries. 

Public speaking anxiety  

For many individuals, public speaking can be a nerve-wracking experience. Presenting in front of an audience, especially in formal settings, can trigger anxiety and stage fright. This anxiety may affect the presenter's delivery and confidence, impacting the overall effectiveness of the Presentation. Overcoming public speaking anxiety requires practice, self-assurance, and effective stress management techniques. 

Not suitable for all topics  

While Presentations are an excellent medium for conveying certain types of information, they may not be suitable for all topics. Some subjects require in-depth discussions, hands-on demonstrations, or interactive workshops, which may not align well with the traditional slide-based Presentation format. Choosing the appropriate communication method for specific topics is crucial to ensure effective knowledge transfer and engagement. 

Accessibility concerns  

In a diverse audience, some individuals may face challenges in accessing and comprehending Presentation materials. For instance, people with visual impairments may find it difficult to interpret visual elements, while those with hearing impairments may struggle to follow the spoken content without proper captions or transcripts. Addressing accessibility concerns is vital to ensure inclusivity and equal participation for all attendees. 

Information overload  

Presentations that bombard the audience with excessive information on each slide can lead to information overload. When the audience is overwhelmed with data, they may struggle to absorb and retain the key points. Presenters should strike a balance between providing adequate information and keeping the content concise and focused. 

How to make a successful Presentation?  

Now that we know the Advantages and Disadvantages of Presentations, we will provide you with some tips on how to make a successful Presentation. 

1) Know your audience: Understand your audience's needs and interests to tailor your content accordingly. 

2) Start with a strong opening: Begin with an attention-grabbing introduction to captivate the audience from the start of presentation .

3) Organise your content logically: Structure your Presentation in a clear and coherent manner with a beginning, middle, and end. 

4) Limit text on slides: Keep slides simple and avoid overcrowding with excessive text; use bullet points and keywords. 

5) Use visuals effectively: Incorporate high-quality images, graphs, and charts to enhance understanding and engagement. 

6) Practice, practice, practice: Rehearse your Presentation multiple times to improve your delivery and confidence. 

7) Be enthusiastic and confident: Show passion for your topic and maintain good eye contact to build trust with the audience. 

8) Tell stories and use examples: Include relevant anecdotes and case studies to make your points more relatable and memorable. 

9) Keep it interactive: Encourage audience participation through questions, polls, or discussions to keep them engaged. 

10) Manage time wisely: Respect the allotted time for your Presentation and pace your delivery accordingly. 

11) End with a strong conclusion: Summarise your key points and leave the audience with a clear takeaway or call to action. 

Conclusion  

All in all, Presentations have altered the way we communicate and share information. While they offer numerous advantages, such as effective communication, visual appeal, and persuasive impact, they also come with their share of disadvantages, including technical challenges and public speaking anxiety. By understanding the advantages and disadvantages of presentations and employing best practices, we can Improve Presesntation Skills , create engaging and impactful presentations that leave a lasting impression on the audience.

Want to master the art of impactful Presentations? Explore our Presentation Skills Courses and elevate your communication prowess!  

Frequently Asked Questions

Upcoming business skills resources batches & dates.

Fri 3rd May 2024

Fri 7th Jun 2024

Fri 5th Jul 2024

Fri 2nd Aug 2024

Fri 6th Sep 2024

Fri 4th Oct 2024

Fri 1st Nov 2024

Fri 6th Dec 2024

Get A Quote

WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

My employer

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry

• Business Analysis
• Lean Six Sigma Certification

Share this course

Our biggest spring sale.

We cannot process your enquiry without contacting you, please tick to confirm your consent to us for contacting you about your enquiry.

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry.

We may not have the course you’re looking for. If you enquire or give us a call on 01344203999 and speak to our training experts, we may still be able to help with your training requirements.

Or select from our popular topics

• ITIL® Certification
• Scrum Certification
• Change Management Certification
• Business Analysis Courses
• Microsoft Azure Certification
• Microsoft Excel Courses
• Microsoft Project
• Explore more courses

Press esc to close

Fill out your  contact details  below and our training experts will be in touch.

Fill out your   contact details   below

Thank you for your enquiry!

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go over your training requirements.

Back to Course Information

Fill out your contact details below so we can get in touch with you regarding your training requirements.

* WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

Preferred Contact Method

No preference

Back to course information

Fill out your  training details  below

Fill out your training details below so we have a better idea of what your training requirements are.

HOW MANY DELEGATES NEED TRAINING?

HOW DO YOU WANT THE COURSE DELIVERED?

Online Instructor-led

Online Self-paced

WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS COURSE?

Next 2 - 4 months

WHAT IS YOUR REASON FOR ENQUIRING?

Looking for some information

Looking for a discount

I want to book but have questions

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go overy your training requirements.

Your privacy & cookies!

Like many websites we use cookies. We care about your data and experience, so to give you the best possible experience using our site, we store a very limited amount of your data. Continuing to use this site or clicking “Accept & close” means that you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about our privacy policy and cookie policy cookie policy .

We use cookies that are essential for our site to work. Please visit our cookie policy for more information. To accept all cookies click 'Accept & close'.

10 Best Presentation Software Alternatives To PowerPoint

Launching into the world of presentations, startups and professionals alike are looking for tools that can set them apart from the mundane. After in-depth analysis, we’ve unearthed 2023’s top 10 presentation apps and software alternatives to PowerPoint. Here’s our handpicked list to elevate your content and captivate your audience. Let these innovative platforms transform your ideas into compelling visual stories.

What Exactly is Presentation Software?

Presentation software is a digital tool designed to showcase information and ideas visually, turning complex data and concepts into easily digestible slides and graphics. It’s about conveying messages effectively, engaging audiences, and transforming ordinary meetings into compelling storytelling sessions.

These programs typically offer features such as slide templates, animated transitions, interactive elements, multimedia embedding, and design customization. This ensures every presentation not only captivates the audience but is also tailored to the presenter’s unique presentation style and objectives. They provide an essential platform for educators, businesses, and professionals to communicate complex ideas, share insights, and collaborate on projects, all while making the experience dynamic and memorable.

10 Premier Presentation Tools Dominating 2023: Beyond PowerPoint

Google slides.

Google Slides is a dynamic presentation tool that’s part of the Google Workspace suite. It offers users the ability to create, edit, and collaborate on presentations directly in their web browsers, eliminating the need for specialized software. With its user-friendly interface, real-time collaborative features, and a variety of customizable templates, it has become a favorite for individuals and teams aiming for seamless, cloud-based presentations.

Moreover, Google Slides is not just restricted to creating slide decks. Its integration with other Google services like Google Drive, Google Photos, and Google Drawings ensures that users have a holistic experience. Whether you’re crafting a presentation for work, school, or personal projects, Google Slides offers the flexibility and tools to bring your ideas to life.

Key Features:

• Real-time Collaborative Editing
• Cloud-based Presentation Storage
• Customizable Slide Templates
• Integrated with Google Workspace
• Interactive Slide Transitions/Effects

Prezi is revolutionizing the art of presentation. Forget the static slides; Prezi’s open canvas allows users to organize, visualize, and move seamlessly through their content, creating an engaging, dynamic experience for audiences. With Prezi, you can collaborate with other users in real-time, no matter where they are located.

Whether in business or education, Prezi is trusted globally. Known for turning any presentation into an unforgettable storytelling experience, it’s been the go-to tool for over 15 years. From classrooms to TED talks, creators in over 180 countries rely on Prezi to craft presentations that are 25% more effective and 40% more memorable than traditional slides.

• Dynamic Open Canvas Design
• Collaboration Features
• Extensive Template & Asset Libraries
• Engaging Video Conference Integration
• Personalized Presenter Notes & Downloadables

Venngage stands out as an intuitive platform tailored for individuals without a design background, enabling them to craft professional and visually appealing infographics. Users are provided with an expansive library of customizable templates, designed to effortlessly transform mundane data and documents into engaging visuals. The platform’s capabilities extend beyond just infographics; it offers robust tools for creating reports, presentations, diagrams, and charts.

Promoting collaboration is at the heart of Venngage. The platform facilitates team synergy, allowing multiple users to contribute and refine projects seamlessly. Furthermore, to make the sharing and distribution process straightforward, Venngage offers a plethora of export options. Whether you’re aiming to keep your audience engaged, present data in a memorable way, or enhance team collaboration, Venngage proves to be an indispensable tool.

• Intuitive Infographic Creation Tools
• Expansive Customizable Template Library
• Collaborative Design and Editing
• Multiple Export Options
• Diverse Report and Chart Capabilities

Powtoon is the ultimate platform for crafting dynamic and engaging videos and presentations that truly captivate your audience. Whether you’re in HR looking to recruit top talent, a marketer aiming for lead generation, or an educator wanting to inspire creativity, Powtoon provides the tools to convey your message with a powerful visual punch. Trusted by 96% of Fortune 500 companies, it ensures your content resonates effectively with your audience.

Dive into a world of animated characters, vast templates, mesmerizing video backgrounds, and evocative soundtracks with Powtoon’s intuitive interface that requires no design or technical expertise. With over 40 million satisfied customers, step up your presentation game and make sure your content stands out in the crowd.

• Dynamic Video and Presentation Maker
• Intuitive No-Skill-Required Interface
• Extensive Library of Animated Characters
• Customizable Templates and Backgrounds
• Trusted by 96% of Fortune 500

Renderforest

Renderforest is a comprehensive design platform that centralizes a multitude of creative tools to cater to your business’s marketing and branding needs. Whether you’re seeking to produce captivating videos, animations, and graphics, or you want to design standout logos, mockups, and professional websites, Renderforest is equipped to bring your visions to life. Trusted by over 20 million users and 100,000 high-end companies, this platform empowers both novices and professionals to craft visually compelling content with ease, ensuring your brand resonates with your target audience.

From crafting powerful explainer videos, creating elegant logo templates, to designing high-end presentations, every tool within Renderforest is designed to elevate your brand’s presence in the market. The platform replaces traditional video creation tools, website subscriptions, and design software, streamlining your creative process under one roof. Feedback from CEOs to freelancers highlights Renderforest’s impact in the field, praising its efficiency, professional results, and ease of use. Dive into Renderforest today and redefine how you communicate your brand’s story.

• Comprehensive Video and Animation Toolkit
• High-End Logo and Branding Designs
• Professional Website Creation and Hosting
• Advanced Presentation and Mockup Tools
• Streamlined Design and Marketing Integration

Pitch is transforming the realm of presentations, merging swift functionality with impeccable aesthetics. Tailored for the modern professional, this platform streamlines the process of crafting compelling slides, without compromising on design or detail. What’s notable is its collaborative feature — allowing teams to work in tandem, thus ensuring each deck embodies a collective vision. Renowned brands such as Grammarly, Notion, and Unsplash stand testament to its capabilities, having integrated Pitch into their workflow.

But Pitch isn’t just about creating; it’s about understanding your audience. The platform offers a suite of analytics tools that shed light on viewer interaction and engagement, ensuring creators can fine-tune their content for maximum impact. With the ability to share, edit, and embed presentations seamlessly, coupled with real-time insights, Pitch is not just a tool, but a comprehensive solution for anyone aiming to elevate their presentation game.

• Swift Collaborative Slide Creation
• Real-time Audience Engagement Analytics
• Seamless Team Collaboration Tools
• Dynamic Template & Brand Integration
• Embed Anywhere Web Presentations

Visme is a dynamic all-in-one platform designed for creating a broad range of visual content, from presentations and documents to data visualizations, videos, and more. Emphasizing interactivity and rich design capabilities, this platform is not just about creating visuals but transforming statistics and figures into compelling, impactful stories.

With its effortless ease-of-use, users can choose from thousands of customizable templates, integrate millions of unique photos and icons, and even bring their content to life with engaging animations. Serving over 23 million users from 133 countries, Visme goes beyond mere design; it’s about creating, scheduling, and publishing all from one place while ensuring brand consistency across teams.

• Interactive Content Creation
• Data-Driven Visualizations
• Thousands of Customizable Templates
• Collaborative Team Features
• Comprehensive Brand Consistency Tools

Slidebean is the ultimate tool for founders looking to elevate their business presentations. Designed with the modern entrepreneur in mind, this platform simplifies the process of creating captivating pitch decks. With its intuitive presentation software, users can swiftly construct impactful decks, while those looking for a more tailored approach can leverage Slidebean’s specialized Pitch Deck Services.

Here, founders are assisted by a team of seasoned analysts, storytellers, and designers to craft the perfect narrative for their startups. This proven formula has led to over $300M in funds raised in just 18 months. Whether you’re an emerging startup or an established business, Slidebean’s robust features, from automated design to slide analytics, are geared to set you on a trajectory of success.

• Intuitive Pitch Deck Creation
• Collaborative Teamwork Features
• Automated Design Assistance
• In-depth Slide Analytics
• Expert Business Analysis Support

HeyGen revolutionizes the video production game, allowing you to craft engaging videos in mere minutes without the hassle of cameras, actors, or complex editing processes. By leveraging AI-generated avatars and voices, users can efficiently produce high-quality content tailored to their needs.

From startups to established enterprises, teams globally are ditching traditional video production constraints and embracing HeyGen’s intuitive system. Whether it’s for product marketing, sales outreach, or learning development, HeyGen’s extensive avatar options and multilingual voices ensure your content resonates with your target audience, all at a fraction of the traditional cost and time.

• AI-generated Avatars and Voices
• Instant Video Production in Minutes
• Comprehensive Avatar Customization Options
• High-quality Voices in 40+ Languages
• Seamless Platform Integrations

Relayto is revolutionizing digital content creation by empowering businesses to transform PDFs and presentations into captivating content hubs. From auto-animations to no-code rich media embeds, Relayto ensures every content piece stands out. Personalized multimedia journeys and robust distribution options make it a top choice for content marketers, sales teams, and other professionals.

Beyond creation, Relayto offers AI-powered tools to turn files into animated digital microsites. It doesn’t stop at content sharing; the platform provides flexible sharing options, be it public, gated, or private. Combined with in-depth document analytics, Relayto ensures businesses not only distribute content but also gain actionable insights from audience engagement.

• Convert PDFs to Digital Hubs
• AI-Powered Content Transformation
• Personalized Multimedia Journeys
• Smart Content Sharing Options
• Deep Document Analytics

How did we pick the top presentation software alternatives to PowerPoint?

Diverse feature set:.

The presentation landscape has diversified, with tools now offering a variety of features, from animation to interactivity. We prioritized software that presented a comprehensive suite of innovative features, allowing users to craft presentations that stand out.

User-Friendly Interface:

The best tools should enhance creativity, not hinder it. We evaluated software based on user-friendliness, ensuring that even those new to presentation design could easily navigate and utilize its features.

Client Showcase:

A software’s reputation often lies in its users’ creations. We critically examined user showcases, searching for software that enabled users to produce exceptional, engaging presentations beyond the standard slide format.

Cost-Effectiveness:

While many professionals and startups seek high-quality tools, budget constraints are real. We ensure our selections offer value for money, delivering outstanding functionality at prices that cater to a range of budgets.

How to choose the right presentation software alternative to PowerPoint for you?

Clarify your needs:.

Understand the nature of your presentations. Are they for educational purposes, corporate pitches social media presentations, or interactive webinars? Recognizing your specific needs will help you select software with features tailored to your requirements.

Identify Your Audience:

The demographics and preferences of your audience can greatly influence your software choice. Tools that engage millennials might differ from those that resonate with a more mature audience. Understanding your audience ensures you can create presentations that are both relevant and engaging.

Seek Recommendations:

Leverage your network. Ask colleagues, peers, or industry connections about the software they use and why. Personal recommendations can provide insights into ease of use, effectiveness, and any potential challenges they’ve encountered.

Take Advantage of Trials:

Most software providers offer free trials or limited versions. Before committing, try out a free version of a few options to get a feel for their interfaces, features, and any limitations they might have.

Check Compatibility:

Consider where and how your presentation will be viewed. Ensure your chosen software is compatible with various devices and operating systems, especially if presenting to a remote or diverse audience.

Understand Pricing Structures:

While some tools offer one-time purchase options, others may have monthly or yearly subscriptions. Additionally, consider any add-ons or premium features you might need. It’s essential to find a tool that offers the features you need within your budget while also providing good value for the cost.

How much does it cost to invest in top presentation software alternatives to PowerPoint?

Venturing into the world of presentations, startups, and professionals often grapple with budget considerations. Leading presentation software alternatives in the US or EU can range between $10 to $50 per month for individual licenses, reflecting their advanced features and dynamic designs. However, more cost-effective alternatives are available from various global sources, although these might occasionally compromise on certain advanced functionalities. Users must balance their financial capacities with desired features when choosing a presentation program.

When is the right time to transition to a new presentation software?

For companies, startups, and professionals alike, discerning the right moment to switch or adopt a new presentation platform is paramount. The ideal time often arises when the presenter feels limited by their current tool, needing more advanced features or a fresher design palette. However, just feeling the need isn’t sufficient; it’s also essential to ensure that transitioning won’t disrupt ongoing projects or presentations. Most professionals consider making a shift during a lull in their presentation schedule or when starting a fresh project. Such periods allow them ample time to acquaint themselves with new features and design nuances. Once a presenter recognizes the need for elevated aesthetics and functionality and has the time to adapt, transitioning to one of the best presentation software alternatives can significantly enhance their storytelling prowess.

Interactive presentation tools vs. in-house development

Every forward-thinking company or individual presenter grapples with the choice: invest in the best presentation software or build an in-house presentation app. On the surface, a monthly subscription of $10 to $50 for a leading presentation software might appear more than reasonable. Yet, this fee unlocks a world of features, from seamless animations to intuitive design interfaces, crafted by experts with years dedicated to perfecting the user experience. Conversely, if you were to develop a proprietary in-house presentation app, the costs of hiring experienced developers, designers, and testers would likely far exceed those monthly fees, without the guarantee of achieving similar sophisticated features or reliability.

Furthermore, established interactive presentation tools benefit from continuous feedback from a vast user base. This means their features and functionalities are regularly updated and refined, ensuring you’re always working with cutting-edge tools. An in-house team might not have this breadth of exposure, potentially leading to a more narrow toolset.

Most common presentation tools

• PowerPoint Presentations: A staple in the presentation arena, PowerPoint offers a comprehensive suite of slide design and animation tools. Companies often turn to this Microsoft product for its familiarity and robust features, ensuring their ideas are conveyed clearly and effectively.
• Interactive Presentations: With the evolving need for dynamic and engaging content, interactive presentations have surged in popularity. Tools that offer features like clickable elements, embedded videos, and real-time audience polls can significantly enhance audience engagement and retention.
• Slide Design Templates: Companies looking for consistency and brand alignment often invest in slide design templates. These pre-designed layouts ensure every presentation adheres to the branding, enhancing recognition and professionalism.
• Webinar Platforms: As remote collaboration becomes more prevalent, companies are leveraging webinar platforms. These tools allow for live PowerPoint presentations, interactive Q&A sessions, and real-time audience engagement, ensuring a more immersive presentation experience.

How do you select the best presentation software alternative to PowerPoint?

• Competitor Usage: Explore the presentation tools your competitors prefer. Understand their choices to gauge which platforms might give you a competitive edge.
• Industry Trends: Survey the broader presentation landscape, pinpointing emerging trends and software functionalities that resonate with contemporary audiences.
• Integration Capabilities: Determine which software integrates seamlessly with other tools you use, ensuring a streamlined workflow and enhancing efficiency.
• Audience Engagement Features: Assess how different software options facilitate audience interaction. Consider features like real-time polling, Q&A modules, and interactive animations to ensure your presentations captivate and engage.

6 things to discuss with a presentation software provider before making the switch

1. preferred communication channels:.

In our connected era, there’s a plethora of ways to stay in touch, ranging from traditional emails to more advanced collaborative platforms. Before committing to a presentation app, ascertain the primary mode of communication for support or queries. Is it through direct emails, platforms like Discord, or a ticketing system within the software itself? A consistent mode of interaction ensures prompt support, clarity, and efficient problem resolution. Moreover, have contingencies in place for pressing issues or if there are any technological disruptions.

2. Primary Point of Contact:

It’s vital to know who you’ll be communicating with when you have queries or need assistance. Will it be a dedicated customer success manager, a support team, or a community forum? Identifying the primary source of help ensures swift solutions and a deeper understanding of how to harness the best presentation software’s full potential. Your point of contact should be knowledgeable, reachable, and have an in-depth comprehension of the software’s functionalities.

3. Frequency of Software Updates:

Regular updates are crucial for software applications to stay relevant and bug-free. Clarify how often the software receives updates—are they monthly, quarterly, or based on user feedback? Frequent updates reflect the provider’s commitment to offering the latest presentation templates, tools, and features. It’s also a chance to discuss the inclusion of new features or any bugs that might affect your future presentations.

4. Transparency in Pricing Structure:

While you may have a grasp of the basic costs, probe deeper into any additional or hidden fees. Are there extra charges for premium presentation templates, additional user licenses, or specific integrations? Being fully aware of the cost structure ensures there are no unwelcome financial surprises later on. A transparent financial discussion fosters trust and sets the stage for a seamless partnership.

5. Metrics for Presentation Success:

It’s essential to understand the metrics the software provides to gauge the effectiveness of your presentations. Discuss available analytics: does the software offer insights into slide engagement, viewer retention, or interactive element usage? Having a shared perspective on what metrics are essential ensures your presentations can be optimized for maximum impact.

6. Software’s Scalability and Adaptability:

As your presentation needs evolve, the software should be able to keep pace. Address how the software adapts to changing trends in the presentation world. Can it handle more extensive audiences, integrate with newer platforms, or offer advanced interactive features down the line? Ensuring the software is future-proof and can scale with your requirements guarantees a lasting and fruitful relationship.

Digital tools that presentation creators use

Slidebean & Visme: These are foundational tools that offer templates video presentations and designs optimized for impactful presentations.

Prezi & Keynote: These platforms stand out for their dynamic and animated presentation capabilities, offering a fresh twist on traditional slide formats.

Canva & Crello: Offer invaluable design templates and elements to refine presentation aesthetics.

Grammarly & Hemingway Editor: Essential tools to ensure content clarity and grammar accuracy, they scan the text to enhance readability and coherence.

Sketch & Illustrator: Design-centric tools pivotal for crafting bespoke illustrations and graphics tailored for slide decks.

Filmora & iMovie: Robust video editing software that enables creators to incorporate compelling video segments within presentations.

Pexels & Unsplash: Both platforms provide a vast collection of high-quality, royalty-free images, enhancing the visual appeal of slides.

Icons8 & Noun Project: Repositories of varied icons, assist presenters in adding concise visual representations to their content.

The Role of Presentation Software in Driving Growth

Presentation software plays a crucial role in propelling businesses forward, acting as an essential tool for effective communication. By utilizing their advanced features and design capabilities, businesses can craft compelling narratives that align with their unique goals. With a dynamic and interactive platform, presentation software can highlight data and insights in ways that captivate audiences. Their adaptability across diverse scenarios ensures that presentations remain engaging and impactful. In tandem with a company’s vision, the best presentation software works diligently to enhance storytelling, driving meaningful engagement and bolstering business growth.

Final Thoughts on Presentation Software.

Think of presentation software as the visual storyteller of today’s digital age. It’s the nexus between the traditional lecture methods of yesteryear and the interactive engagement of modern times.

A presentation tool serves as a digital canvas, allowing ideas and information to come alive in a visually captivating manner. Whether you’re a solo entrepreneur or a multinational enterprise, this software empowers your audience members and narratives with clarity and dynamism. Just as a canvas transforms mere colors into art, presentation software elevates simple data into compelling visuals and stories. In a world dominated by screens and short attention spans, the significance of a versatile, intuitive, and captivating presentation platform is paramount.

Related articles

Bordio SIA, Katlakalna 9A, Riga, Latvia © All rights reserved. Terms & Privacy

Privacy Overview