FLUX.1 [schnell] Black Forest Labs vs Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo Stability AI

FLUX.1 [schnell]

• + Successfully placed the red book on top of the cube.
• + High level of photo-realism and natural lighting.
• + Accurate glass refraction and reflections including the plant through the glass.

• − Included a second blue sphere on top of the book which was not in the prompt.

Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo

• + Strong composition with sharp lines and high contrast.
• + Good adherence to the color palette requested.

• − Failed to place the red book on top of the cube, putting it inside instead.
• − The blue sphere is inside the book/cube base rather than sitting freely.
• − The lighting looks more synthetic compared to Model A.

FLUX.1 [schnell]

• + Excellent adherence to aesthetic prompts like light rain, wet pavement reflections, and cinematic lighting.
• + Realistic skin textures and complex bike mechanics.
• + Captures the 'candid' and 'street photo' atmosphere perfectly with environmental storytelling.

• − The rear wheel of the bicycle is slightly distorted/elongated.
• − The man's hands on the handlebars are somewhat merged and anatomically unclear.

Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo

• + Successfully includes the requested red bicycle and elderly man.
• + Clearer separation between the foreground subject and background.

• − Failed to render realistic rain, reflections, or motion blur from cars.
• − The bicycle geometry is broken, with the frame missing a top tube and merging into the man.
• − The man's hair and clothes have a plastic, CG-like texture that lacks realism.

FLUX.1 [schnell]

• + Excellent skin texture with realistic pores, scars, and micro-details
• + Dramatic lighting that correctly interacts with the facial contours and armor
• + Very lifelike, intense eyes with clear reflections

• − The braids are somewhat blended into the background hair and less distinct
• − Does not show much of the asked-for leather straps or cloth underlayers

Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo

• + Very clearly defined braids and ornate engraving on the plate armor
• + Good inclusion of 'dirt' (appearing more as dried blood smears) and cloth underlayers
• + Solid shallow depth of field effect

• − Skin texture appears plastic and smoothed, losing the 'battle-worn' realism
• − Ear anatomy and the hair-to-head transition look slightly unnatural
• − The lighting on the face feels like a digital 'glow' rather than reflections from an actual torchlight source

FLUX.1 [schnell]

• + Excellent typography rendering for headers
• + Clear implementation of a grid layout for food photos
• + Clean and realistic professional menu aesthetic

• − Small body text is gibberish
• − The 'ORFEFUS' section replaces the requested 'Mains' header

Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo

• + Highly vibrant and colorful food photography
• + Clean layout with dotted line price guides
• + Good spatial separation between menu cards

• − Failed the 'grid' layout for food photos as requested
• − Misspelled 'Mains' as 'Mians'
• − Food items look slightly more like plastic/CGI than real food

FLUX.1 [schnell]

• + Excellent photorealistic texture on the bun and meat.
• + Accurately includes and renders the requested text strings.
• + Strong adherence to the fiery background and glowing embers requirement.

• − Failed the 'exploded' requirement as the core burger is still assembled.
• − Text has a minor spelling error ('AGIC' instead of 'MAGIC').
• − The starburst price is duplicated and messy.

Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo

• + Creates a very vibrant, high-contrast fiery atmosphere.
• + Good sense of suspension in mid-air with melting elements.
• + Artistic use of smoke and sparks.

• − Completely failed to include any of the requested text.
• − Failed the 'exploded' requirement as the burger is a solid stack.
• − The burger looks more like a 3D render than a photorealistic image.

FLUX.1 [schnell]

• + Excellent chalk texture that looks authentically handwritten.
• + High degree of legibility for most of the specified menu items.
• + Consistent café environment in the background with realistic lighting.

• − Several spelling errors like 'Taffle', 'Pril', and 'Octtoopus'.
• − The prices do not match the prompt exactly (e.g., $4 instead of $24).

Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo

• + Clean aesthetic composition with nice interior design elements.
• + Includes a variety of items on the menu board.

• − Text is heavily garbled and nonsensical (e.g., 'trulale', 'ocotpg').
• − The font looks like a digital brush rather than authentic chalk on a board.
• − Fails to include the full date and correct prices.

FLUX.1 [schnell]

• + Perfectly follows the specific constraint of the horse being on top
• + Excellent cinematic lighting and textures
• + Creative visual interpretation of a surreal concept

• − The horse has two neck/head sections merged together
• − The astronaut's anatomy is slightly fragmented

Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo

• + Clean, high-resolution rendering
• + Good composition with the planet and moon
• + Coherent astronaut suit details

• − Completely failed the negative constraint/positional instruction
• − Generic interpretation of the prompt
• − Anatomical issues with the horse's rear legs

FLUX.1 [schnell]

• + Excellent fur texture and lighting on the capybara.
• + Successfully captured the businesswoman in the back seat looking at her phone.
• + High quality text rendering on the hat and interior taxi sun visor signage.

• − The capybara only has one paw near the steering wheel while the other is in its lap.
• − The capybara is looking directly at the camera rather than the road.

Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo

• + Perfect adherence to the instruction for both paws to be on the steering wheel.
• + The capybara's profile and gaze accurately reflect a professional driver focusing on the road.
• + The composition feels more like a cinematic side-view shot of a taxi.

• − The passenger in the back is blurry and not clearly looking at a phone.
• − The text on the hat is slightly garbled/cut off compared to model A.
• − The capybara's fur looks slightly less realistic and more like a solid surface near the neck.

FLUX.1 [schnell]

• + Successfully included all the required event details such as the date and location.
• + High-quality cinematic lighting with a moody atmosphere.
• + Accurate gothic font choices and a dark parchment aesthetic.

• − Contains significant typos and repetitions in the small banner and event details text.
• − The composition feels slightly cluttered with several text layers overlapping.

Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo

• + Clean, readable central graphic and well-designed thorny/web border.
• + Good interpretation of the parchment request with clear borders.

• − Failed to include the specific event details (date, time, location) at the bottom.
• − Missing the required scroll banner and part of the title text.
• − The overall image looks more like a generic clipart than a cinematic invitation.

FLUX.1 [schnell]

• + Excellent typography for the word 'JAPAN'.
• + Perfectly clean and minimalist aesthetic following the light blue background prompt.
• + High clarity and professional graphic design feel.

• − Completely omitted the secondary text 'SUSHI'.
• − The red mark on top of the nigiri looks slightly messy compared to the rest of the render.

Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo

• + Effective miniature 3D diorama style with good PBR material feel.
• + Included both required text elements, though with a spelling error.
• + Shows multiple types of sushi which adds visual interest.

• − Text 'SUSHI' is misspelled as 'SIIHI'.
• − The flag icon is incorrect, appearing more like a red and white bicolour flag rather than the Japanese flag.
• − Layout feels a bit cluttered compared to the 'ultra-clean' requirement.

FLUX.1 [schnell]

• + Successfully included all four distinct animal species (puppy, kitten, bunny, fox).
• + Excellent lighting with clear god rays and a warm sunrise atmosphere.
• + Cohesive and natural integration of the animals within the meadow environment.

• − The bunny and fox morphologies are slightly hybridized with feline features.
• − The butterflies appear somewhat flatly rendered compared to the fur.

Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo

• + Bright, high-contrast colors and very sharp focus on the central characters.
• + Intense backlit glow around the fur edges.

• − Failed to include a rabbit/bunny as requested in the prompt.
• − The animals look more like 3D digital art than the requested 'hyper-photorealistic' scene.
• − Anatomical issues, particularly with the puppy's paws and the fused bodies of the smaller animals.

FLUX.1 [schnell]

• + Clean vector emblem style
• + Perfectly centered and balanced composition
• + Good color palette adherence

• − Major text spelling errors: 'FRAMILAN' instead of 'Florian'
• − Incorrect year: '7720' instead of '1720'
• − Missing the 'steam' element requested in the prompt

Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo

• + Successfully included all elements: cloche, steam, and banner
• + Accurate date (1720) and much closer spelling
• + Excellent vintage texture and shading

• − Small typo in 'Caffeé' (extra 'e')
• − The symbol is a hybrid of a cloche and a coffee mug, which is slightly confusing
• − Artifacts around the last letter of 'Florian'

FLUX.1 [schnell]

• + Successfully follows the requested infographic layout with a centralized trajectory and numbered steps.
• + Clean, minimalist flat-vector aesthetic that matches the requested style.
• + Better adherence to the 'navy, white, and muted red' NASA color palette.

• − Text consists entirely of gibberish, failing to render the requested step labels.
• − Iconography for the Saturn V and Earth is overly simplified to the point of being abstract.
• − The central rocket icon is strangely mirrored/duplicated.

Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo

• + High-quality illustration components with more polished vector rendering.
• + Creative layout that feels more like a commercial poster.
• + Good legibility on primary headers like 'Apoll.o' and 'Landing'.

• − Fails to include all 6 requested steps in the sequence.
• − Includes an astronaut on a ladder which was not requested and clutters the technical infographic feel.
• − The composition is fragmented into multiple panels rather than a single cohesive diagram.