Head to head
Esc

Models · slot A

to navigate to pick

FLUX.2 [dev] Black Forest Labs GPT Image 1 OpenAI

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

FLUX.2 [dev]

24.5 arena score

#18 of 62 in Text-to-Image

Skill signature · Text-to-Image

GPT Image 1

23.2 arena score

#28 of 62 in Text-to-Image

Vote tally

Where the votes landed

FLUX.2 [dev]

33.3%

win rate

Ties

0.0%

GPT Image 1

66.7%

win rate

33.3% 0.0% ties 66.7%
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]
GPT Image 1
0% wins 0% ties 100% wins

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent refraction and reflection of the blue sphere on the glass bottom.
  • + Highly realistic lighting from the window that creates a natural atmosphere.
  • + Superior texture on the wooden table and glass edges.
  • The glass cube has a top panel that makes the book look like it's floating slightly due to the thickness of the glass.

GPT Image 1

  • + Perfectly adheres to the spatial prompt with the sphere centered and the book grounded.
  • + Clear visibility of the plant through the glass panels as requested.
  • The sphere appears to be hovering slightly above the bottom of the cube rather than resting on it.
  • The lighting is somewhat flat and lacks the realistic directional shadows seen in the competitor.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] produces a significantly more realistic and cinematically lit image with superior textures and optical physics. While GPT Image 1 follows the instructions accurately, it feels more like a 3D render with less convincing shadows and a sphere that doesn't appear to be resting naturally on the surface.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent preservation of the subject's clothing, including the specific plaid pattern and thick black scarf.
  • + Accurate representation of the Rolls-Royce interior details like the gauges and wood paneling.
  • + Cinematic lighting that matches the outdoor environment.
  • The man's facial features are slightly altered compared to the source.
  • Close-up composition cuts out most of the car's exterior.

GPT Image 1

  • + Highly accurate preservation of the car's exterior design and specific model details.
  • + Excellent background composition for a California coastline drive.
  • + Successfully places the man in the driver's seat while maintaining the car's scale.
  • The man's clothing is significantly simplified, losing the distinct plaid pattern and scarf volume from the source.
  • The interior seating colors and door panel details are slightly simplified compared to the source.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] did a superior job of preserving the specific clothing of the man, making the subject feel like the same person from the source photo, though it sacrifices the view of the car. GPT Image 1 excels at preserving the specific car and providing a better overall composition of the scene, but fails to maintain the man's outfit details. FLUX.2 [dev] is the winner for better subject consistency, which is often harder to achieve in multi-image editing tasks.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent execution of car motion blur in the background
  • + Very realistic skin and hair textures
  • + Highly detailed bicycle and wet weather effects
  • The anatomy of the hands and fingers is significantly distorted
  • The bicycle handlebar structure is overly complex and illogical

GPT Image 1

  • + Natural and coherent posture of the man
  • + Good atmosphere with bokeh and soft lighting
  • + Better preservation of anatomical correctness in the hands
  • Failed to include the specific request for motion blur from passing cars
  • The image has a slightly painterly/stylized feel despite the 'no stylization' prompt

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] followed the technical prompt details much better, specifically capturing the motion blur of the cars and the gritty realism of a rain-slicked street, though it suffered from significant hand artifacts. GPT Image 1 produced a more aesthetically pleasing and anatomically sound person but ignored the motion blur requirement and applied a softer, more stylized look. FLUX.2 is the winner for adhering to the complex environmental instructions even with the hand issues.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent depiction of multiple beads woven into small braids as requested.
  • + Highly intricate and clear engraving on the plate armor with distinct textures on leather straps.
  • + Effective use of warm torchlight and glowing sparks for atmosphere.
  • The scars look a bit like face paint or fresh surface wounds rather than deep, healed scars.
  • The background lighting feels slightly synthetic compared to the subject.

GPT Image 1

  • + Sublime facial textures and skin rendering that look authentic and battle-worn.
  • + Very moody and realistic lighting integration with the subject's face.
  • + The engraving on the armor feels integrated and heavy.
  • Failed to include the 'small beads' in the hair, only showing standard braids.
  • The overall image is a bit dark, obscuring some of the requested detail in the cloth underlayer.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] followed the specific details of the prompt more closely, particularly regarding the beads in the hair and the visibility of the leather and cloth textures. However, GPT Image 1 produced a much more realistic and emotive facial portrait with superior skin texture, even though it missed a few specific prop details.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent variety and density of content like a real restaurant menu
  • + Creative use of vibrant color accents and gradients in the layout
  • + Distinct sections for Appetizers, Pizza, and Mains as requested
  • Text is mostly gibberish with many spelling errors
  • Some of the food photos in the grid lack clarity or look repetitive

GPT Image 1

  • + Extremely clean and readable sans-serif typography
  • + High-quality, appetizing food photography
  • + Perfect adherence to the 'minimalist' aesthetic with clear hierarchy
  • The layout is very sparse with large amounts of empty space
  • The text uses repetitive placeholder labels instead of varied menu items

Verdict: While FLUX.2 [dev] creates a more complex and realistic layout for a casual dining menu, its text rendering and some image details are messy. GPT Image 1 provides a significantly cleaner, more professional minimalist design with superior food photography, making it a better visual template despite the simplified content.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Perfect text rendering for all prompt requirements including 'LIMITED TIME ONLY'.
  • + Clean, professional composition with realistic spacing between ingredients.
  • + The glowing starburst for the price is well-integrated and legible.
  • The burger bun and patty look a bit too uniform, appearing slightly artificial compared to better food photography.

GPT Image 1

  • + Excellent texture on the meat patty and toasted bun surfaces.
  • + Very strong 'fiery' aesthetic with convincing embers and a textured glow on the text.
  • The price tag is incorrect, displaying '€.99' instead of '€6.99'.
  • Large tomato slices are placed under the top bun rather than being distributed, making the stack look slightly top-heavy.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] followed every instruction perfectly, including the complex text requirements and the specific price. While GPT Image 1 has slightly more realistic food textures and a more intense fiery atmosphere, it failed on the price accuracy and had a slightly less balanced composition. FLUX.2 [dev] is the winner for its precision and complete adherence to all prompt elements.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent chalk texture with visible smudges and varying stroke pressure.
  • + Included the $ sign correctly for all items.
  • + Accurately rendered the complex cursive slant requested.
  • Has a slight visual glitch with a phantom 'with' and 'w' strike-through in the middle.
  • The background is quite busy, though it does fit the 'cozy cafe' prompt.

GPT Image 1

  • + Perfectly legible and clean text rendering.
  • + Very cohesive letter sizing and layout.
  • + Minimalist and professional composition.
  • The text looks a bit too much like a digital font rather than natural chalk handwriting.
  • Missing the '$' sign on the final item ('Cookies 9').
  • Lacks the 'elegant cursive' style requested for the title.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] followed the prompt more effectively by incorporating a truly hand-drawn cursive style with authentic chalk smudges and textures, whereas GPT Image 1's output feels more like a digital font. FLUX.2 also correctly included the currency symbols for all items, although it does have a minor rendering artifact in the center of the board.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Successfully replicates the specific character's face, sunglasses, and scarf from Image 2.
  • + Captures the vibrant yellow lighting and high-contrast red stool of Image 1.
  • Has a severe anatomical nightmare with a second head and hair sprouting from the side of the torso.
  • Failed to orient the head correctly to match the pose, resulting in a floating upright head on a bent body.

GPT Image 1

  • + Successfully merges the character's features with the pose from Image 1.
  • + Correctly removes the original woman's head and hair entirely for a more coherent result.
  • The facial likeness is significantly lower than Model A, making the character look like a caricatured version.
  • Loss of detail on the scarf and clothing compared to the source image.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] contains disturbing anatomical errors, specifically leaving the original woman's head grafted onto the side of the new character's body. GPT Image 1, while having a weaker facial likeness to the reference character, successfully executes the pose and character swap into a singular, coherent figure. Therefore, GPT Image 1 is preferred for creating a usable, albeit less accurate, image.

The Reversed Rodeo

Text-to-Image

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

FLUX.2 [dev]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent photorealism in the spacesuit and horse texture.
  • + High cinematic quality with beautiful lighting and nebulae.
  • + Strong composition with a sense of movement and depth.
  • Failed the negative constraint; the astronaut is riding the horse.

GPT Image 1

  • + Atmospheric lighting and gritty, detailed textures on the spacesuit.
  • + Dynamic horse pose with a good sense of scale against the planet.
  • Failed the negative constraint; the astronaut is riding the horse.
  • The reigns are poorly integrated and overlap the horse's neck unnaturally.

Verdict: Both models failed the specific spatial logic of the prompt ('horse on top, not vice versa'), instead following the common idiom of an 'astronaut riding a horse.' However, FLUX.2 [dev] produced a far superior image in terms of clarity, realistic lighting, and overall cinematic polish compared to the darker, less cohesive output from GPT Image 1.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Successfully replicates almost all clothing items and accessories including the scarf, coat, jeans, belt, and sunglasses.
  • + Accurately places the scarf over the shoulder as seen in the reference.
  • + Maintains the decorative underwear brand text seen in the first image.
  • Fails to keep the person's face and hair unchanged, merging the facial features of both source individuals.
  • Adds unnecessary gold chains not present in the reference images.
  • The lighting on the body feels slightly flat compared to the background.

GPT Image 1

  • + Perfectly preserves the person's exact face, hair, and skin markings from image 1.
  • + Accurately recreates the pea coat and plaid scarf textures.
  • + Maintains the background integrity almost perfectly.
  • Misses several accessories like the sunglasses and rings.
  • The scarf pattern is simplified compared to the source image.
  • Fails to include the specific watch shown in image 2, replacing it with a different style.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] followed the clothing and accessory details much more closely but failed the primary constraint of keeping the person's face unchanged, creating a composite person instead. GPT Image 1 successfully preserved the person's identity and background perfectly, though it missed a few specific accessories like the sunglasses. GPT Image 1 is the winner for following the difficult preservation constraint while still delivering a high-quality clothing transfer.

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]
GPT Image 1
0% wins 0% ties 100% wins

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent fur texture and lighting on the capybara's face.
  • + Very high level of detail on the passenger and her interaction with her phone.
  • + The capybara's hands are integrated well with the steering wheel.
  • The steering wheel placement looks slightly too low in the frame compared to the capybara's torso.
  • The cap logo is a generic 'T' instead of the requested text.

GPT Image 1

  • + The cap correctly includes the text 'TAXI' as implied by the prompt context.
  • + Excellent atmospheric lighting and cinematic depth of field.
  • + Stronger sense of 'insider' perspective from the taxi's front dash area.
  • The passenger is significantly blurrier and less detailed than in Model A.
  • The capybara's right paw is rendered somewhat awkwardly against the steering wheel.

Verdict: Both models followed the prompt instructions very well, capturing the surreal scenario with high fidelity. FLUX.2 [dev] is the winner because of its superior clarity and details on both the capybara and the passenger, whereas GPT Image 1 suffers from a loss of detail in the background characters and slightly more artifacts on the hands.

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]
GPT Image 1
100% wins 0% ties 0% wins

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent typography with perfect adherence to all requested event details.
  • + Highly detailed border containing both thorns and intricate spiderwebs as requested.
  • + Crisp, clean illustration style with strong contrast and cinematic lighting.
  • The thorns in the border are slightly repetitive and overwhelming in thickness.

GPT Image 1

  • + Atmospheric and moody color palette that feels more 'vintage parchment'.
  • + Good inclusion of the moon and subtle tree silhouettes.
  • Text error in the details section where 'TIME' and 'Location' are merged incorrectly.
  • The border is very faint and lacks the requested thorn detail.
  • Image is overall much darker and grainier, losing some of the 'polished' feel requested.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] followed the complex text instructions perfectly, including all specific event details without error. While GPT Image 1 captured a slightly more authentic vintage atmosphere, it failed on the text-to-image logic by combining the location into the time field and omitting the thorn details from the border. FLUX.2 [dev] is the winner for its clarity, professional layout, and precise prompt adherence.

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]
Before After
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent preservation of the original facial features and lighting
  • + Highly realistic hair texture with individual flyaway strands
  • The choice of an afro-textured hairstyle may not match the existing beard texture for a 'natural' look

GPT Image 1

  • + Natural-looking hairstyle that blends well with the existing beard shape
  • + Successful preservation of the background and original clothing
  • Noticeable distortion of the forehead and upper eye area
  • Visible artifacts where the glasses frames meet the temple

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] performed significantly better at the edit task by perfectly preserving the subject's face and the environmental lighting while adding highly detailed hair. GPT Image 1 struggled with the underlying structure of the face during the edit, resulting in warped features and AI artifacts around the glasses.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent PBR textures with realistic subsurface scattering on the fish
  • + Perfectly sharp and clean typography
  • + Accurate 45-degree isometric perspective
  • The diorama base has slight clipping issues with the wasabi placement

GPT Image 1

  • + Strong '3D cartoon' aesthetic with smooth, rounded sculptural forms
  • + Pleasing soft lighting and color palette
  • + Good inclusion of extra details like chopsticks and ginger
  • Typography is slightly less crisp and professional compared to Model A
  • The isometric angle is a bit lower than the requested 45 degrees

Verdict: Both models followed the prompt exceptionally well, capturing the isometric diorama aesthetic and text requirements perfectly. FLUX.2 [dev] stands out for its superior material realism (PBR) and ultra-clean graphic design elements, whereas GPT Image 1 leans more heavily into the 'cartoon' aspect with softer, clay-like shapes.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent integration of all components, placing the desk directly on a hockey rink.
  • + Captures the user's facial likeness reasonably well while applying the caricature style.
  • + Includes multiple dogs with distinct personalities and hockey gear.
  • Text on the news desk is nonsensical and garbled.
  • The additional human character in the top left feels unnecessary and distracts from the subject.

GPT Image 1

  • + Strong watercolor illustration style that feels very traditional for a caricature.
  • + Preserves the subject's original denim shirt from the source image.
  • + Clear, legible text on the news desk.
  • The facial features are extremely distorted, losing the likeness of the original woman.
  • The hockey element is mostly relegated to a background screen and a small prop rather than being part of the scene's environment.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] followed the prompt more creatively by merging the TV anchor desk with a hockey rink and including several dogs in jerseys, all while maintaining a recognizable likeness of the woman. GPT Image 1 produced a charming watercolor style and preserved her clothing, but it failed to maintain her facial characteristics and the composition felt less integrated. FLUX.2 [dev] is the winner for its superior composition and thematic execution.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent anatomical accuracy and fur texture detail
  • + Beautifully rendered lighting with realistic god rays and dew sparkles
  • + Distinctly identifies all requested species, including a very clear red fox kit
  • The animals are largely sitting rather than 'tumbling and chasing' as requested
  • Includes an extra bunny not specifically requested in the prompt count

GPT Image 1

  • + Perfectly captures the 'tumbling and chasing' action requested in the prompt
  • + Engaging and dynamic composition with animals in mid-air
  • + Strong emotional resonance with very expressive 'big eyes'
  • Anatomical issues with the cat's limbs and the fox's front paws being overly dark/blurry
  • The fox kit looks more like a puppy hybrid compared to the realism in Image A

Verdict: While FLUX.2 [dev] produces a higher quality, more realistic image with superior lighting and texture, it fails to capture the dynamic action of the prompt. GPT Image 1 much better reflects the 'tumbling and chasing' aspect of the request, but it suffers from minor anatomical distortions and less refined fur rendering. FLUX.2 [dev] is the winner for its technical mastery and photorealism.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent preservation of the source image's specific poses, clothing patterns, and composition.
  • + Clean line work and soft pastel colors that align well with modern anime styles.
  • + High clarity and resolution in the facial features while maintaining the character's original identities.
  • The transition to a flowery meadow background loses the urban context of the original 'Distracted Boyfriend' meme.
  • Leans more towards generic modern anime rather than the specific hand-painted textured look of Ghibli.

GPT Image 1

  • + Captures the specific Ghibli-esque 'watercolor' hand-painted texture and soft lighting perfectly.
  • + Preserves the original street/urban background context while stylizing it.
  • + Uses a warmer, more nostalgic color palette that matches the prompt's mood.
  • Lost the distinct plaid/checkered pattern on the man's shirt, simplifying it to stripes.
  • Slightly less clarity in the fine details of the faces compared to Model A.

Verdict: Both models successfully interpreted the prompt, but took different approaches to the 'Ghibli' style. FLUX.2 [dev] produced a cleaner, more modern illustration that perfectly preserved the iconic poses and shirt textures but changed the background to a field. GPT Image 1 (DALL-E 3) captured the actual Ghibli aesthetic much better through its soft textures and painterly lighting, successfully transforming the meme into lookalike concept art while maintaining the original setting.

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]
Before After
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Successfully added both blowing hair and flying leaves as requested.
  • + Excellent preservation of the background and the dog from the source image.
  • + Hair motion looks symmetrical and intentional.
  • The leash handle has been slightly simplified compared to the source.

GPT Image 1

  • + Highly natural hair motion with varied strand directions.
  • + Adds a wind-blown effect to the dog's fur as well.
  • + Excellent preservation of the woman's facial features and the overall scene.
  • The leash handle in the woman's hand is partially malformed.
  • Some leaves appear slightly blurred/distorted compared to the rest of the image.

Verdict: Both models followed the instructions very well, effectively adding wind motion and flying leaves while keeping the scene recognizable. FLUX.2 [dev] provides a very clean edit with better integrity on the leash, while GPT Image 1 offers a more believable and dynamic hair movement despite some minor artifacts in the hand area.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent typography rendering including the accent on 'Caffè'.
  • + Perfectly captures the requested 'warm brown and cream tones' with a light background.
  • + Complex and well-balanced vector emblem composition with a decorative banner.
  • The 'Est. 1720' text is slightly small compared to the main brand name.

GPT Image 1

  • + Strong minimalist aesthetic with clean silhouettes.
  • + Accurate rendering of the cloche and steam elements.
  • + Good legible serif typography.
  • Failed to provide a 'light background' as requested, opting for a black background instead.
  • The overall composition feels a bit more generic than the detailed emblem in Model A.

Verdict: FLUX.2 [dev] followed all prompt instructions, specifically the light background and cream tones, creating a cohesive vintage emblem. While GPT Image 1 produced a clean vector, it failed to adhere to the requested color palette for the background, making it less suitable for the vintage minimalist theme requested.

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]
GPT Image 1

AI Judge Analysis

FLUX.2 [dev]

  • + Excellent detailed 3D-shaded vector illustration style.
  • + High fidelity icons for the Saturn V and Lunar Module.
  • + Includes many of the requested steps with creative visual elements.
  • The layout is cluttered and contains several gibberish text elements.
  • Failed to follow the requested chronological order (Launch is at the bottom).
  • The 'Saturn V' icon has strange artifacting and duplications.

GPT Image 1

  • + Perfectly captures the 'clean, flat-vector' infographic style requested.
  • + Highly accurate text rendering with almost no spelling errors.
  • + The composition is organized and looks like a professional educational poster.
  • Missed the specific 'Lunar Orbit' step as an individual icon.
  • The Earth's proportions and 'Translunar' arc are very simplified.

Verdict: While FLUX.2 [dev] produces much more detailed and visually impressive individual icons, it fails as an infographic due to poor text legibility and a nonsensical layout. GPT Image 1 successfully captures the 'flat-vector' aesthetic and maintains clear, professional organization and accurate spelling, making it the superior functional infographic.

Next steps

Explore each model