Head to head
Esc

Models · slot A

to navigate to pick

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo fal Seedream 4.5 ByteDance

Settled by community votes across 20 shared challenges, with an AI judge weighing in on each.

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

27.9 arena score

#3 of 62 in Text-to-Image

Top 3 in Text-to-Image
Skill signature · Text-to-Image

Seedream 4.5

26.1 arena score

#9 of 62 in Text-to-Image

Vote tally

Where the votes landed

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

22.2%

win rate

Ties

22.2%

Seedream 4.5

55.6%

win rate

22.2% 22.2% ties 55.6%
Shared challenges 20

Challenge by challenge

The strongest take from each model on every shared challenge, with the AI judge's read.

Geometric Composition

Text-to-Image

“A glass cube on a wooden table. Inside the cube is a small blue sphere. On top of the cube sits a red book. A green plant is behind the cube, partially visible through the glass. Soft window light from the left.”

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Perfect adherence to all spatial instructions and objects.
  • + Highly realistic glass textures, including dust and reflections.
  • + Beautiful lighting and clear background depth.

Seedream 4.5

  • + Crisp lighting effects on the table surface.
  • + Clean, minimalist composition.
  • Physical logic failure as the blue sphere intersects through the solid glass wall.
  • The glass object has a triangular/hexagonal base rather than being a cube.
  • The background plant is very blurry and difficult to distinguish.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo followed the prompt perfectly, creating a highly realistic scene with complex glass transparency and correct object placement. Seedream 4.5 failed on basic physics, showing the blue sphere clipping through the glass wall, and failed to render a cube shape correctly.

Man and Car in California

Editing
Edit instruction

“Make a photo of the man driving the car down the California coastline”

Source
FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Excellent preservation of the subject's face and hairstyle.
  • + Realistic motion blur on the road and car body.
  • + Accurate lighting consistency between the subject and the new environment.
  • The driver's hands and steering wheel are poorly rendered with anatomical distortion.
  • The car's interior trim details look slightly muddy compared to the source.

Seedream 4.5

  • + Successfully preserved the subject's entire outfit including the cargo pants and boots.
  • + The coastline environment is very atmospheric and fits the prompt well.
  • + Preserves the specific white leather interior of the source car.
  • The car door is wide open while the vehicle is supposedly in motion, creating a safety absurdity.
  • The subject's face is slightly altered and less accurate to the source than Model A.
  • The steering wheel appears to be floating or disconnected from a dash column.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo provides a much more realistic composition and captures the man's facial likeness almost perfectly, though it struggles with the anatomy of the hands. Seedream 4.5 captures the most source detail by including the full outfit, but the logic error of a wide-open car door while driving on a highway significantly hurts the overall quality. FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo is the preferred choice for a cohesive and believable photograph.

Candid Street Photography

Text-to-Image

“A candid street photo of an elderly Japanese man repairing a red bicycle in light rain, reflections on wet pavement, shallow depth of field, 50mm lens, natural skin texture, imperfect framing, motion blur from passing cars, cinematic but realistic, no stylization.”

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5
0% wins 0% ties 100% wins

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Excellent adherence to the 'imperfect framing' prompt with a higher, more candid camera angle.
  • + Superior rendering of mechanical bike details, including the chain, gears, and kickstand.
  • + Very realistic textures on the wet pavement and the man's aging hands and skin.
  • The rain effect is subtle, appearing more like a few streaks rather than a consistent light rain.
  • The front wheel of the bicycle appears to be sinking into the pavement.

Seedream 4.5

  • + Effective use of motion blur from passing cars to create a sense of movement.
  • + Strong bokeh and lighting from car headlights created a more 'cinematic' mood.
  • + Good depiction of light rain falling through the scene.
  • Major anatomical/mechanical error where the bicycle chain is passing through the man's hand.
  • The bike's frame and proportions are distorted, with the front and rear halves not connecting logically.
  • The skin texture and clothing appear slightly more 'plastic' compared to Model A.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo produced a far more coherent and realistic image, particularly in the complex mechanical details of the bicycle and the texture of the man's skin. Seedream 4.5 captured the requested cinematic motion blur and rain atmosphere better, but failed significantly on physical logic, showing a chain passing through the subject's hand and a disjointed bike frame.

Fantasy Warrior

Text-to-Image

“Close portrait of a battle-worn paladin in ornate engraved plate armor, hair braided with small beads, faint scars and dirt on the skin, warm torchlight reflecting off metal, shallow depth of field, bokeh sparks, lifelike eyes, highly detailed texture on leather straps and cloth underlayer.”

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Excellent depiction of the requested beads in multiple braids
  • + Highly detailed engraved plate armor with visible wear
  • + Strong adherence to the 'lifelike eyes' prompt with a direct, soul-searching gaze
  • The torch in the background is a bit distracting in terms of composition
  • The scars look slightly painted on rather than recessed into the skin

Seedream 4.5

  • + Beautiful cinematic lighting and warm color palette
  • + Very realistic skin texture with integrated scars and fine dirt
  • + Superior leather and cloth textures consistent with a high-end CGI render
  • The beads are clustered at the top rather than threaded through braids as requested
  • The composition cuts off much of the character's face in a side-profile view

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo followed the specific details of the prompt more accurately, particularly regarding the placement of beads in the braids and the central portrait composition. However, Seedream 4.5 produced a more aesthetically pleasing and lifelike image with superior texture rendering and more natural-looking skin distress, making it the preferred choice for visual quality.

Modern Clean Menu

Text-to-Image

“Modern minimalist restaurant menu design, white background with colorful food photos in grid, sections for appetizers/pizza/mains, bold sans-serif fonts, vibrant accents, clean professional layout for casual dining.”

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5
50% wins 50% ties 0% wins

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Excellent adherence to the 'grid' layout requested in the prompt.
  • + Professional typography with clear headers, subtext, and price alignment.
  • + Dynamic and modern use of color accents and geometric shapes.
  • The content of the 'Mains' and 'Appetizers' sections is mostly just more pizza images.
  • The pricing is highly unrealistic (e.g., $260 for a pizza).

Seedream 4.5

  • + Displays a logical variety of food photos corresponding to the categories (Appetizers, Pizza, Steak/Mains).
  • + Clean, minimalist layout with high-contrast colored borders.
  • + Legible sans-serif headers and consistent pricing list.
  • The layout is a simple vertical list rather than the requested 'grid'.
  • Repetitive text in the Mains section (using 'Restaurant' as an item name).

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo followed the layout requirements much better, creating a sophisticated grid design that looks like a real professional menu, despite the absurd pricing and repetitive pizza photos. Seedream 4.5 provided better thematic consistency between the photos and their headers (Appetizers vs. Mains), but failed to implement a grid layout and produced a much simpler design.

Magic Burger Explosion: Fiery Photorealism Challenge

Text-to-Image

“Ad for 'Magic Burger'. Dynamic, exploded burger with all components (bun, patty, cheese, lettuce, tomato, sauce) suspended in mid-air. Emphasize photorealistic detail and a sense of motion. Dark, fiery background with glowing embers. Integrate text: 'MAGIC BURGER' as a prominent title, 'LIMITED TIME ONLY' as a secondary message, and '€6.99' in a starburst, all rendered with a fiery, glowing effect.”

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Excellent typography with a consistent fiery outline across all text elements.
  • + High level of photorealistic detail in the food textures, particularly the patty and lettuce.
  • + Balanced composition with clear space between ingredients.
  • Slightly static feel despite the suspended ingredients.

Seedream 4.5

  • + Stronger sense of motion with motion-blurred ingredients flying outwards.
  • + Highly dynamic background with actual flame elements and charcoal embers.
  • + Integrated typography feels more stylized and consistent with a professional ad layout.
  • The 'exploded' effect is less clear as most of the burger remains stacked together.
  • The pickles and tomato slices on the sides look slightly less photorealistic than the main burger.

Verdict: Both models followed the prompt exceptionally well, producing high-quality advertisements. FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo succeeded in creating a clearer 'exploded' view where each layer is distinct, whereas Seedream 4.5 captured a more visceral sense of motion and heat. FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo is the winner for its superior text rendering and better ingredient separation which fits the 'exploded' requirement more precisely.

Chalkboard Menu

Text-to-Image

“Handwritten-style chalkboard menu in a cozy café, all text rendered in the exact same realistic chalk handwriting style with natural variations in letter size, slight slant, and chalk texture — no printed or digital fonts anywhere on the board. Title at the top in elegant cursive chalk handwriting: ‘TODAY’S SPECIALS – APRIL 30, 2026’. Below it, three menu items also in the same handwritten chalk style: ‘Truffle Mushroom Risotto – $24’, ‘Grilled Octopus with Lemon & Herbs – $28’, ‘Brown Butter Chocolate Chip Cookies – $9’. At the very bottom, smaller text in the identical handwritten chalk style (slightly smaller but still clearly legible with the same handwriting characteristics): ‘All items made fresh daily • Ask about our gluten-free options’. Warm ambient café lighting, visible chalk dust and smudges, realistic handwriting imperfections, no clean printed text anywhere.”

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Perfectly unique handwriting with authentic chalk texture and slight slant as requested.
  • + Excellent background detail with realistic cafe lighting and blurred depth of field.
  • + No repetition of text elements, creating a cleaner layout.
  • Slight formatting error on the first item where the dollar sign is duplicated on two lines.
  • The handwriting for the bottom-most text feels a bit more uniform and computer-like than the rest.

Seedream 4.5

  • + Very readable and clean chalk-style lettering with a convincing dusty texture.
  • + Effective use of negative space and framing within the wooden border.
  • + Completed the 'Brown Butter' text item logically despite the prompt being cut off.
  • Repeat error where the item 'Risotto - $24' is rendered twice on different lines.
  • The handwriting looks slightly more like a digital font designed to look like chalk rather than freehand writing.

Verdict: Both models followed the prompt instructions very well, effectively capturing the chalk texture and specific menu items. FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo produced a more authentic 'handwritten' feel with natural variations, whereas Seedream 4.5 had a significant repetition error in the text which detracted from the realism.

Pose & Character Mashup

Editing
Edit instruction

“Use Image 1 as the exact pose reference and Image 2 as the character reference. Recreate the person/character from Image 2 in the exact dynamic pose and body position from Image 1. Keep the exact face, hair, clothing style/details, and expression from Image 2. Match the lighting and environment of Image 1. The final image must show the character from Image 2 performing the precise action/pose from Image 1 with perfect anatomy and natural integration.”

Source
FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Successfully replicates the complex scarf, clothing text, and black color palette from Image 2.
  • + Captures the yellow background and red ottoman from Image 1 effectively.
  • + Maintains the head-tilt orientation requested by the pose reference.
  • Fails to include the sunglasses from the character reference.
  • Gives the character long, flowing hair that does not match the short hair in Image 2.
  • The leg positioning is anatomically messy with a kneeling leg and a floating third foot.

Seedream 4.5

  • + Excellent character preservation including the sunglasses, hair style, facial hair, and clothing.
  • + The body pose is a much more accurate recreation of the dynamic leg crossing from Image 1.
  • + High visual quality with natural lighting and shadows on the yellow background.
  • The right hand (extended upwards) lacks the specific finger positioning of a dancer seen in the source.
  • Minor text distortion on the sweatshirt compared to the original garment.

Verdict: Seedream 4.5 is the clear winner as it successfully integrated the character's key features—namely the sunglasses and short hair—which FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo replaced with long hair. Seedream 4.5 also handled the difficult leg-crossing pose from Image 1 with much greater anatomical accuracy, whereas FLUX.2 created a confusing hybrid of kneeling and standing.

The Reversed Rodeo

Text-to-Image

“Horse riding astronaut in space — horse on top, not vice versa. Surreal, highly detailed, cinematic.”

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Excellent anatomical details on the horse and space suit
  • + Cinematic lighting with a realistic planetary backdrop
  • + High resolution and clarity
  • Failed the core prompt instruction of 'horse on top'

Seedream 4.5

  • + Successfully placed the astronaut underneath the horse as requested
  • + Vibrant, surreal nebular background
  • + Solid attempt at a complex spatial arrangement
  • Anatomical issues where the astronaut's body seems to merge or clip into the horse
  • The astronaut's legs and pelvis are awkwardly positioned

Verdict: While FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo produced a much higher quality image visually, it completely ignored the specific spatial instruction for the horse to be on top. Seedream 4.5 followed the prompt's difficult surrealist requirement, placing the astronaut underneath the horse, though it suffered from some anatomical distortion in the process.

Outfit Transfer Challenge

Editing
Edit instruction

“Use Image 1 as the base person. Dress them in the exact elaborate outfit from Image 2 (including all layers, accessories, jewelry, and shoes). Carefully adapt the clothing to the body shape and pose in Image 1 while maintaining realistic fabric behavior, correct proportions, and perfect lighting/shadow matching. Keep the person’s exact face, hair, and background completely unchanged.”

Source
FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + The outfit, scarf, and accessories match Image 2 very closely.
  • + Excellent lighting integration of the person into the scene.
  • Completely failed the identity preservation by using the face and hair from the person in Image 2 instead of Image 1.
  • Added excessive, unrequested jewelry that wasn't in either source image.

Seedream 4.5

  • + Correctly used the person from Image 1, preserving their face, hair, and distinct skin markings.
  • + Successfully transposed the coat, scarf, and watch from Image 2 while adapting them to the pose.
  • + Maintained the background from Image 1 perfectly.
  • The shirt is rendered as a transparent or 'cut-out' panel showing the chest skin through the fabric in an unrealistic way.
  • Missing the sunglasses from the reference image.

Verdict: Seedream 4.5 is the clear winner as it followed the complex instruction to keep the person from Image 1 while changing their clothes; FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo failed the core editing task by simply replacing the original person with the man from Image 2. Although Seedream 4.5 had a strange artifact where the shirt appeared transparent over the chest, it successfully preserved the subject's identity and skin patterns.

The Capybara Taxi Driver

Text-to-Image

“Photorealistic scene inside a yellow New York taxi at night. A capybara is driving, wearing a yellow taxi driver cap and a dark jacket. It has a calm, professional expression and both front paws on the steering wheel. In the back seat sits a human businesswoman in a coat, looking at her phone with a completely normal, bored expression (as if this is just another normal ride). Through the windows you can see the streets of Manhattan at night with blurred lights. Realistic taxi interior, photorealistic, detailed fur and fabric, 35mm lens, night lighting with reflections, shallow depth of field.”

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Excellent photorealism with sharp textures on the fur and clothing
  • + Accurate depiction of a bored/normal human expression
  • + Complex lighting with reflections on the car exterior
  • The passenger is sitting in the front passenger seat rather than the back seat
  • The capybara's hands look slightly more like human/primate hands than capybara paws

Seedream 4.5

  • + Correctly places the businesswoman in the back seat as requested
  • + Composition feels more immersive from the perspective of looking through the front windshield
  • + Clear and legible 'TAXI' text on the hat
  • The capybara's front paws on the wheel have an unnatural, slightly blurred appearance
  • Fewer fine details in the background city lights compared to Model A

Verdict: Both models followed the prompt well, but Model B ultimately adhered better to the spatial requirements by placing the woman in the back seat. While FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo produced a higher fidelity image with superior lighting and texture, it failed at the specific positioning of the passenger, making the interaction feel less like a 'ride' and more like a carpool.

The Halloween Invitation

Text-to-Image

“Vintage gothic Halloween party invitation. Dark parchment poster, spooky border with webs and thorns, central glowing jack-o-lantern, bats, twisted trees, moody night sky. Add elegant gothic title text saying "Halloween Party Invitation", a small scroll banner saying "You are invited to a night of frights", and event details at the bottom: Date: 30.10.2026 Time: 7pm Location: The Arches, NYC Spooky but polished, cinematic lighting, square format.”

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Perfect text rendering for all requested details and fonts.
  • + Very detailed and intricate border with realistic webs and thorns.
  • + Excellent balance and centered composition that fits the 'poster' aesthetic.
  • The overall tone is slightly more muted and less 'cinematic' than it could be.

Seedream 4.5

  • + Higher contrast and more cinematic lighting with a vibrant blue night sky.
  • + Accurate text placement on the scroll banner.
  • + Good use of atmospheric elements like the crescent moon and mist.
  • The border features barbed wire which was not requested and feels less 'vintage gothic' than thorns.
  • The layout at the bottom is slightly cluttered with text overlapping the scenery unevenly.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo followed the prompt most accurately, particularly with the specific request for a thorn border and precise text rendering. While Seedream 4.5 offers more dramatic lighting and a punchier color palette, it introduced barbed wire instead of thorns and had a less organized layout for the event details. FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo is the winner for its superior composition and adherence to the 'vintage gothic' stylistic constraints.

Bald man challenge

Image Editing
Edit instruction

“Give the person a full, thick head of natural hair with realistic texture, density, and a natural hairline. Preserve facial features and lighting.”

Before After
FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Before After
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Excellent preservation of all facial features and glasses from the source image.
  • + Perfectly matches the lighting and environment of the background.
  • + Follows the 'full, thick head' prompt very literally with a bold style.
  • The hair texture doesn't perfectly match the coarser texture of his beard.
  • The hairline transition is slightly obscured by the volume of the hair.

Seedream 4.5

  • + The hair color and texture perfectly match his existing beard and eyebrow color.
  • + The hairline looks very realistic and natural for his facial structure.
  • + Maintains impeccable source preservation of the face and clothing.
  • The hair is slightly less 'full' compared to the dramatic volume shown in Model A.

Verdict: Both models performed exceptionally well at preserving the source image's identity, lighting, and background. Seedream 4.5 is the winner because it provides a highly realistic, textured hairstyle that perfectly matches the aesthetic of the subject's existing beard, whereas FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo's addition feels slightly more like an overlay than an integrated part of the person's character.

Isometric Miniature Diorama Scenes

Text-to-Image

“Create a clear, 45° top-down isometric miniature 3D cartoon scene of Japan's signature dish: sushi, with soft refined textures, realistic PBR materials, gentle lighting, on a small raised diorama base with minimal garnish and plate. Solid light blue background. At top-center: 'JAPAN' in large bold text, 'SUSHI' below it, small flag icon. Perfectly centered, ultra-clean, high-clarity, square format.”

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5
0% wins 33% ties 67% wins

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Excellent text rendering with clean, professional-looking typography.
  • + Highly realistic textures on the salmon and rice grains.
  • + Perfectly balanced composition on a clean wooden diorama base.
  • The garnish flower on top of the sushi looks a bit more like butter than traditional garnish.

Seedream 4.5

  • + Good variety of sushi types including rolls and nigiri.
  • + Strong miniature/diorama feel with rounded base corners.
  • + Accurate placement of the flag icon next to the text.
  • Significant blurring on the edges of the diorama base due to shallow depth of field.
  • Texture on the base looks slightly rough/noisy compared to the requested 'soft refined textures'.
  • Text layout is slightly less integrated than in Model A.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo produced a much cleaner and more professional image with superior texture work and typography. While Seedream 4.5 captured the 'miniature' feel well, its excessive use of depth-of-field blur and coarser textures made it less visually appealing than the sharp, high-clarity output of FLUX.2.

Over-the-top cartoon caricature

Editing
Edit instruction

“Create a caricature of me and my job. Make it exaggerated and humorous, incorporating my profession as a tv show anchor and my love for dogs and hockey.”

Source
FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Expertly captures the caricature art style with a classic 'big head' and hand-drawn feel.
  • + Integrates all three elements (TV anchor, dogs, and hockey) into a cohesive and humorous scene.
  • + Successfully translates the facial features of the source image into a cartoon aesthetic.
  • Text on the desk is nonsensical gibberish.
  • The style change is so drastic that it loses almost all physical details of the source image except for basic facial structure.

Seedream 4.5

  • + Maintains a strong resemblance to the source image's facial features and clothing.
  • + Preserves the original background setting while adding requested elements.
  • + High visual clarity and realistic textures within the stylized edit.
  • The addition of elements feels like a simple 'collage' rather than a cohesive caricature.
  • The hockey and TV anchor elements (microphone, stick) are just placed on a desk without much humor or exaggeration.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo created a true caricature by reimagining the entire scene in a humorous, exaggerated, and stylistically consistent manner. Seedream 4.5 took a more literal approach by enlarging the subject's head and placing props nearby, but it failed to capture the 'humorous' and 'caricature' spirit requested in the prompt as effectively as FLUX.2.

Adorable Baby Animals in Sunny Meadow

Text-to-Image

“Hyper-photorealistic scene of fluffy baby animals—a golden retriever puppy, tabby kitten, baby bunny, and red fox kit—with big expressive eyes and ultra-detailed soft fur, playfully chasing butterflies and tumbling together in a lush wildflower meadow, warm golden sunrise light with god rays and dew sparkles, joyful wholesome vibe, 8K masterpiece.”

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5

AI judge analysis unavailable for this challenge.

Studio Ghibli Anime Style

Editing
Edit instruction

“Transform this photo into a Studio Ghibli–inspired illustration. Use soft pastel colors, hand-painted textures, gentle lighting, dreamy backgrounds, and a warm, nostalgic mood”

Source
FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Excellent preservation of the source characters' facial features and structures.
  • + Beautifully soft, textured watercolor aesthetic that fits the Ghibli request.
  • + Creative background addition of cherry blossoms and flowers adds to the nostalgic mood.
  • The facial expressions are slightly softened, losing some of the sharp 'indignant' look of the woman on the right.

Seedream 4.5

  • + Perfectly captures the specific character design style of Studio Ghibli films like 'Ocean Waves' or 'Whisper of the Heart'.
  • + Strong preservation of the source image composition and the specific plaid pattern of the shirt.
  • + Effective use of watercolor paper textures in the background.
  • The characters look like generic anime versions of themselves rather than the individuals in the photo.
  • The woman on the left has a slightly vacant expression compared to the source.

Verdict: Both models did an excellent job of adhering to the prompt. FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo succeeds by maintaining the likeness of the original people while applying a painterly Ghibli-esque filter, whereas Seedream 4.5 completely redraws them into a more authentic anime art style that feels closer to a real film frame. FLUX.2 is the likely winner for better preserving the unique identity of the subjects from the viral meme.

Golden Hour Stroll

Image Editing
Edit instruction

“Add dynamic motion to this photo: make hair blow in the wind, add leaves flying, energetic and lively feel.”

Before After
FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Before After
Seedream 4.5

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Excellent source preservation, keeping the foreground and background elements nearly identical to the original.
  • + Dramatically alters the hair to show a clear wind-blown effect.
  • + Successfully adds a high density of falling leaves.
  • The leaf overlay feels a bit static and uniform, lacking motion blur.
  • Some leaves appear to be floating awkwardly in front of the subject's face.

Seedream 4.5

  • + Good integration of motion blur on the falling leaves for a more cinematic feel.
  • + Successfully captures the blowing hair and energetic atmosphere.
  • Significant source divergence, changing the woman's face, the dog's expression, and the background details.
  • Composition is slightly zoomed in compared to the original, losing parts of the path and foliage.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo followed the edit instructions perfectly while maintaining the integrity of the original image's subjects. Seedream 4.5 created a more 'lively' aesthetic with better motion blur, but it failed the image editing preservation task by fundamentally changing the faces and features of the woman and the dog.

Vintage Cafe Logo

Text-to-Image

“Vintage minimalist restaurant logo for "Caffè Florian", retro cloche dome with steam and "Est. 1720" banner, classic typography, warm brown and cream tones, subtle texture on light background, vector emblem style.”

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5
100% wins 0% ties 0% wins

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Perfect adherence to all text requirements including the grave accent on 'Caffè'.
  • + Excellent vintage texture on both the logo and the background paper.
  • + Strong vector emblem composition with a well-integrated banner.
  • The steam lines are slightly disconnected from the cloche.

Seedream 4.5

  • + Clean, simple vector style that fits a minimalist aesthetic.
  • + Good use of color hierarchy with warm browns and creams.
  • + Accurate text rendering and placement.
  • The 'E' in 'Caffè' is missing the requested grave accent.
  • The typography feels a bit default and less 'vintage' than requested.
  • Lacks the subtle background texture requested in the prompt.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo followed the prompt much more closely, successfully including the specific accent mark in 'Caffè' and applying a convincing vintage texture to the background and emblem. Seedream 4.5 produced a clean logo but failed to provide the requested texture and missed the specific accent mark on the text.

Apollo 11: Journey to Tranquility

Text-to-Image

“Create a clean, modern vector infographic poster about the Apollo 11 mission. NASA-inspired palette (navy, white, muted red, light gray). Flat-vector style, crisp lines, consistent iconography, subtle gradients only. Steps (stop at landing): 1. Launch (Saturn Vicon) 2. Earth Orbit (Earth + orbit ring icon) 3. Translunar (trajectory arc icon) 4. Lunar Orbit (Moon + orbit ring icon) 5. Descent (lunar module descending icon) 6. Landing (lunar module on the surface icon) Small supporting elements (minimal text): • Crew strip: three silhouette icons with only last names: Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins. • Landing site marker: Moon pin labeled "Tranquility" only. Layout constraints: generous margins, large readable labels, clean background with subtle stars. Vector-only, print-poster look, high resolution.”

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo
Seedream 4.5
0% wins 0% ties 100% wins

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo

  • + Excellent text rendering of astronaut names and phase titles
  • + High level of detail in the Illustrations of the Saturn V and Lunar Module
  • + Successfully includes the requested NASA 'worm' and 'meatball' logos
  • Confusing layout with redundant icons (two Earths, two Moons) and disorganized flow
  • Literal interpretation of the prompt text 'Saturn Vicon' as one word
  • Background is a bit noisy for a 'clean' flat-vector infographic style

Seedream 4.5

  • + Very clean, professional infographic layout with a logical linear timeline
  • + Follows the flat-vector style aesthetic perfectly with crisp lines and consistent iconography
  • + Accurate numbering of the six requested steps
  • The 'Descent' icon is a generic satellite rather than the lunar module
  • Missed the red accent in the NASA-inspired palette for the text/icons
  • Minor text spacing issues in the astronaut names

Verdict: Seedream 4.5 is the winner because it successfully interprets the request for an 'infographic' with a clear, linear flow and clean flat-vector aesthetics. While FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo has impressive detail in its individual illustrations, the overall layout is cluttered and confusing, making it less effective as a functional piece of information design.

Next steps

Explore each model