Washing away the AI bubbles

Article    May 19, 2026
SHARE
BOTTOM LINE UPFRONT

AI washing in PE is a credibility risk, not just a messaging problem. GPs that announce AI tools without measurable outcomes — reduced close cycles, better forecast accuracy, earlier risk signals — are exposed when LPs start asking follow-up questions. The fix is leading with the operational problem first, then the solution, with specific workflows and KPIs to back it up.

The Drawdown has previously reported on overmarketing or “washing” trends present in private markets, such as “impactwashing and “greenwashing.” The latest addition relates to the topic no one can escape right now: AI washing.

As the technology becomes a critical function of private equity operations, the issue of AI washing comes largely from implementation for implementation’s sake, without clear results to back up the investment and a heavy focus on marketing the former.

Firms that have recognised the dangers in this approach, such as OpenGate Capital, have put in place governance protocols to prevent AI washing.

“I view AI as a governance tool, not a technology that solves all things in PE,” says Samir Mohin, CFO and COO at OpenGate. “That framing matters because the most common mistake is leading with the tool rather than the problem, which leads to the second mistake of confusing aspiration with implementation. A GP presenting a roadmap that has not been stress-tested is taking on reputational risk.”

As GPs are increasing their usage of AI, incorrect use or the misrepresentation of its application could affect their relationship with LPs.

According to a 2025 survey by technology platform Juniper Square, 80% of responding GPs are piloting AI use cases and 85% are using AI to support their fundraising and investor communications. Higher usage of AI without addressing the risks is more vulnerable to AI washing.

To prevent the occurrence of AI washing and develop solutions to prevent it, GPs need to identify the gaps that lead to AI washing and the risks it holds.

Kyle Roemer, managing director and head of data and AI at Accordion, a financial consulting firm, finds two common mistakes being the root of AI washing in PE:

One: Leading with tools rather than outcomes

GPs announce platforms, partnerships and pilot programmes without being able to answer the question LPs actually care about: what changed in the business because of it? Saying you’ve deployed an AI tool is meaningfully different from saying you’ve reduced close cycles, improved forecast accuracy or identified retention risk earlier. When GPs can’t make that connection, sophisticated LPs notice.

Two: Only keeping AI at the fund level

Roemer says the AI story goes beyond funds to portfolio companies. It becomes marketing if a GP mandates AI adoption across their portfolio but less than half of those companies are implementing it for specific results.

The domino effect leads to risking credibility of the firm, a vulnerable position in the LP-GP relationship and eventually eroding trust between parties.

“LPs are getting better at asking follow-up questions and the answers are starting to matter in fundraising conversations,” Roemer says. “LP relationships are long and the community is small. A GP that overclaims on AI in 2024 and can’t point to results in 2026 has a problem that goes beyond the AI story.”

Open the gate

Every AI tool is built off a certain database, but how GPs implement and present it can be the key to preventing AI washing. In conversation with The Drawdown, OpenGate’s Mohin shares how he approaches governance of the firm’s AI deployments.

When Mohin presents to LPs, the test he applies is whether it is quantifiable and defensible. This can include showing a specific workflow, measurable output or KPI. Mohin says, “if you cannot answer these questions, you are not ready to present it to an LP.”

He continues: “The near-term use cases may not be glamorous, they are repetitive, auditable and boring but important. Examples include document review and synthesis, quality control checks, reconciliation and research. This is high-volume, low-creativity work that consumes human computing power. This is where the ROI is measurable: error rates and hours recovered.”

The specificity and metrics Mohin describes add credibility. Roemer has a similar perspective because LPs can evaluate which workflows changed, which metrics moved over what time period and in which portfolio companies. “They cannot evaluate a slide that says AI is a priority.”

However, the specificity depends on what stage the GP is in addressing their operational issues. Roemer further explains that if a GP’s first approach is to solve the operational problems before diving into the technology, the framing shifts from “we are deploying AI across the portfolio” to “we identified that portfolio companies were spending significant finance team capacity on manual close processes, and here is what we did about it and what it produced.”

“The GPs building real trust with LPs right now are the ones acknowledging that this is hard, that adoption is the real challenge and that they are investing in the organisational capability to make it stick, not just the technology,” adds Roemer. “That framing tends to be more credible than perfection because it matches what LPs are hearing everywhere else.”

A final word of caution for GPs: it can be difficult to assess the long-term costs of using AI tools, given how heavily subsidised AI tokens are right now. Rushing to commit to AI implementation and overstating use cases is not only a potential reputational risk with LPs, it could also become an unexpected financial burden.

As the potential of AI implementation bubbles up, tread carefully to avoid slipping on its soap suds.

FAQ

What is AI washing in private equity, and why is it a growing concern?
AI washing in private equity refers to the gap between how firms market their AI capabilities and what they have actually implemented and measured. As AI becomes a critical function of PE operations, some GPs are announcing platforms, partnerships, and pilot programs without being able to demonstrate tangible business outcomes. The concern is growing because LP sophistication is increasing — follow-up questions are becoming sharper, and overclaiming in fundraising conversations can damage long-term relationships in a small, interconnected community.
What are the most common mistakes that lead to AI washing?

According to Kyle Roemer, managing director and head of data and AI at Accordion, two root causes drive most AI washing in PE. The first is leading with tools rather than outcomes — announcing AI deployments without connecting them to measurable changes such as reduced close cycles, improved forecast accuracy, or earlier identification of retention risk. The second is limiting the AI narrative to the fund level. When a GP mandates AI adoption across its portfolio but fewer than half of those companies are implementing it for specific, demonstrable results, the story becomes marketing rather than substance.

How should GPs frame their AI story to LP audiences?

The framing that builds credibility is problem-first rather than technology-first. Instead of leading with “we are deploying AI across the portfolio,” a more defensible narrative starts with the operational problem — for example, identifying that portfolio company finance teams were spending significant capacity on manual close processes — and then explains what was done about it and what it produced. LPs can evaluate workflows, metrics, time periods, and specific portfolio companies. They cannot evaluate a slide that says AI is a priority.

Need support for your portfolio CFOs? Let's talk.

Our contact form is currently blocked by your cookie preferences. Please change your preferences to continue.