Complex Deals Without AI Input ‘No Longer Defensible,’ per Survey

Not only is artificial intelligence increasingly popular among advisers, but many financial dealmakers consider people who do not use AI to be disadvantaged. A recently published survey of 1,000 global dealmakers by software-as-a-service provider Datasite LLC, including 250 in the U.S., found that 71% agreed that firms that ignore AI will struggle to compete within five years.

Financial professionals appear to be increasingly leery of human capabilities without AI assistance. Fewer than half of respondents (45%) said signing a deal should always remain a human decision, and 43% agreed that, in certain cases, AI had already made better deal decisions than humans. Sixty-two percent agreed that decisionmaking that only involves humans is “no longer defensible” in complex transactions.

Almost all (96%) respondents used or explored incorporating AI for sourcing and screening deals, while half regularly embedded AI in due diligence. Two-thirds of respondents agreed that AI decreases risks in transactions, and 24% said AI helped them complete a deal they otherwise would have missed.

More than one-quarter (26%) said they had delayed or canceled hiring for a role because they felt AI could be just as effective.

Is AI Competition?

Among a group of 300 U.S. advisers, 76% said adopting AI will bring a competitive advantage, according to the 2026 Natixis Global Survey of Financial Advisors. Natixis Investment Managers, which conducted the survey from March through May, found that two-thirds of U.S. respondents believed AI could drive market growth for the next two decades, and 70% said AI would free up time to spend with clients.

Only 12% of U.S. advisers surveyed thought AI would put them out of business—compared with 30% of responding global advisers—but many said AI could be a potential competitor. Among U.S. respondents, 78% said their current biggest competitors were traditional financial advisers, compared with 7% saying it was tools for self-directed investors. In five years’ time, 35% expected self-directed tools to be the biggest competition, compared with just 26% predicting it would be traditional advisers.

Contrasting with Datasite’s skepticism over human ability, most of Natixis’ U.S. respondents placed value in human connection—91% said personal relationships and accountability made them more valuable to clients than AI tools, and 65% said investors took unnecessary risks when they followed AI advice.

Interestingly, only 23% of responding U.S. advisers said they felt pressure from their firms to implement AI, on par with Australia (21%) but far below the global average (48%). The highest levels of pressure in surveyed countries were reported in Hong Kong (69%), Mexico (65%), Switzerland (65%) and Uruguay (65%).

“Advisers … are preparing for a fundamental reset in the business of advice,” said Dave Goodsell, the Natixis Center for Investor Insight’s executive director, in a statement. “The longer-term imperative is to adapt their businesses for a market where AI-powered tools, next-generation investors, and evolving client expectations redefine the competitive landscape. … [Advisers] recognize the challenge but also see a clear path to growth.”