FLUX.2 [dev] Black Forest Labs vs Seedream 4.0 ByteDance

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent handling of glass thickness and optical refraction.
• + The blue sphere is correctly placed inside the volume of the cube.
• + Soft lighting feels natural and consistent across the table and glass surfaces.

• − The sphere appears to be floating slightly rather than sitting on the bottom.
• − The plant in the background is very blurry, making it harder to see through the glass as requested.

Seedream 4.0

• + The cube geometry is very sharp and precise.
• + Reflections on the mirrored base of the cube add a nice level of detail.
• + The plant is clearly visible through the glass panels.

• − The red book is not perfectly centered and looks a bit small for the cube.
• − The perspective of the table edges is slightly inconsistent with the cube's orientation.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent preservation of the subject's specific outfit including the patterned coat and knit scarf.
• + High realism in interior car textures and cinematic lighting.
• + The hairstyle is very close to the source image.

• − The car interior is somewhat generic and loses the specific dashboard look of the source Rolls Royce.
• − The man's facial features have changed significantly from the source.

Seedream 4.0

• + Successfully merges the car and man while preserving most of the car's exterior design.
• + Good overall composition that clearly shows the coastline and the car in motion.
• + Maintains the man's likeness and hair structure reasonably well.

• − The man is disproportionately small relative to the car interior.
• − Noticeable digital artifacts and 'ghosting' around the man's head and the coastline.
• − Clothing details like the coat pattern are blurred and less distinct than in the source.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent depiction of motion blur with multiple passing cars that look realistic
• + Highly detailed skin textures and lifelike facial features
• + Very authentic rain effects and complex reflections on the asphalt

• − The bicycle frame geometry is slightly anatomically incorrect near the handlebars
• − The man's right leg appears to be missing or merged into the bike frame

Seedream 4.0

• + Captures a more traditional Japanese street vibe with tool details on the ground
• + The bicycle structure is more coherent and recognizable
• + Good use of puddle reflections and composition

• − Skin and hair textures look slightly smoothed and less like a 'natural' 50mm photo
• − The motion blur on the car is a bit muddy and looks like a digital filter rather than long exposure
• − Rain is barely visible compared to the request for light rain

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent depiction of ornate, engraved plate armor with clear floral motifs.
• + Detailed beads in the braids that match the prompt perfectly.
• + Authentic and balanced warm lighting from the visible torch.

• − The scars look slightly like surface level paint rather than healed tissue.
• − The straps are a bit clean for a battle-worn character.

Seedream 4.0

• + Superior gritty skin texture with more realistic dirt and faint scarring.
• + Dynamic bokeh sparks and dramatic hair lighting.
• + Better portrayal of the 'battle-worn' aesthetic on the armor's surface.

• − The torch in the background has a slightly messy, blown-out digital glow.
• − Engravings on the armor are less distinct and intricate than Model A.
• − Some minor artifacts in the hair/bead transitions.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent layout that fully replicates a professional two-page menu structure.
• + High-quality, distinct food photos that fit the categories.
• + Clean and modern use of color accents and typographic hierarchy.

• − Text consists of gibberish characters rather than legible English words.
• − The price formatting is inconsistent with some very high numbers.

Seedream 4.0

• + Perfectly legible English text for headers.
• + Vibrant food photography with good clarity.
• + Minimalist aesthetic using a clean white background.

• − Failed to create an actual menu layout, providing only a collage of headers and photos.
• − Lacks prices, descriptions, or any detailed menu content.
• − Irregular grid layout with awkward white space.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent typography with clean, legible text and high-quality fiery effects.
• + Highly photorealistic ingredient textures, particularly the patty and lettuce.
• + Followed the price prompt accurately with €6.99.

• − The 'exploded' effect is a bit static and vertical compared to the dynamic request.

Seedream 4.0

• + Stronger sense of motion with circular blurring and a more aggressive exploded layout.
• + Great integration of the 'MAGIC BURGER' title into the flame effect.

• − Failed the pricing prompt by displaying €5.99 instead of €6.99.
• − The composition is a bit cluttered with two burgers/half-burgers, which confuses the 'exploded components' instruction.
• − The starburst graphic for the price feels less cohesive with the overall artistic style.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent chalk texture and smearing effects on the board.
• + Flawless spelling and adherence to the specific pricing requested.
• + Strong cursive title that matches the prompt's elegance.

• − One minor word repetition/overlay in the second item ('with h').

Seedream 4.0

• + Natural, realistic chalk handwriting style.
• + Good composition with a more dynamic angle of the chalkboard in a café setting.
• + Consistent handwriting style across all menu items.

• − The date rendering is slightly less defined compared to Model A.
• − Slightly less chalk 'grain' texture in the letters themselves compared to Model A.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Accurately captures the character's face, sunglasses, and scarf from Image 2.
• + Matches the lighting and yellow background of Image 1 effectively.

• − Horrific anatomical failure where the original person's head from Image 1 remains attached to the side of the character's body.
• − The character is floating in a distorted way rather than standing on the ottoman.

Seedream 4.0

• + Attempts to blend the hair and scarf into a singular figure.
• + Maintains a cleaner background composition.

• − Fails to use the character's face, instead creating a bizarre hybrid of both people.
• − Poor anatomical rendering of the hands and feet.
• − Does not follow the vertical pose of Image 1, instead opting for a crouched position.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent full-body composition and lighting
• + Realistic textures on both the horse and the spacesuit
• + High level of cinematic detail including background planets and nebula

• − Failed the negative constraint; the astronaut is riding the horse, not the horse riding the astronaut

Seedream 4.0

• + Strong visual clarity and dynamic posing
• + Beautiful reflection detail in the astronaut's visor
• + Good color balance between the white subjects and the dark space background

• − Failed the negative constraint; the astronaut is riding the horse
• − Anatomical issues where the horse's front legs merge awkwardly with the body

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Successfully replicates the specific plaid scarf and navy peacoat from Image 2.
• + High-quality rendering of fabric textures and jewelry details.
• + Correctly maintains the background and the wooden pillar from Image 1.

• − Fails the most critical instruction by merging the faces of both people instead of keeping the person from Image 1 unchanged.
• − The vitiligo pattern and facial structure are completely altered to look like the man in Image 2.

Seedream 4.0

• + Successfully preserves the facial identity and specific vitiligo patterns of the person in Image 1.
• + Accurately replicates the entire outfit, including the shoes and accessories.
• + Features better body-shape adaptation for the new clothing.

• − The scarf pattern is slightly less precise compared to the source image than Model A.
• − Minor artifacting around the sunglasses and the left hand.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent photorealism with sharp textures on the capybara's fur and the businesswoman's coat.
• + Perfect adherence to the lighting and facial expression requirements for both characters.
• + Stronger composition that focuses on the interactions and details inside the cabin.

• − The capybara's paws look slightly more like human hands than natural capybara feet.

Seedream 4.0

• + Natural composition showing more of the car's exterior and side profile.
• + Good rendering of the bored expression on the passenger.

• − The capybara's paws are positioned awkwardly on the steering wheel.
• − The passenger is placed in the far back corner, making her slightly less central to the 'normalcy' of the scene than requested.
• − Slightly less clarity in the textures of the foreground elements compared to FLUX.2.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent text legibility and accuracy across all fields.
• + Clean and symmetrical composition that works well as a formal invitation.
• + High visual clarity in the border details of thorns and webs.

• − The parchment texture is less pronounced than requested, feeling more like a digital border.
• − The jack-o'-lantern color is somewhat muted/dark compared to traditional vibrant carvings.

Seedream 4.0

• + Atmospheric cinematic lighting with a strong glow from the jack-o'-lantern.
• + Great vintage parchment aesthetic with torn edges and realistic textures.
• + Dynamic composition with more depth in the background trees and bats.

• − Text on the scroll is distorted and difficult to read.
• − Text alignment at the bottom is slightly staggered and less polished.
• − Heavy shadows make some of the 'Arches' text hard to see against the background.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent preservation of the original face, lighting, and background.
• + High-resolution texture with realistic individual hair strands.

• − The hairstyle choice (large afro/highly textured) may feel slightly incongruous with the existing beard texture.

Seedream 4.0

• + Natural integration of the hairline with the forehead.
• + The hair texture and color perfectly match the existing beard.

• − The top of the hair looks slightly flat and unnatural in its volume.
• − The lighting on the top of the hair is a bit dull compared to the strong light source in the original.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent typography rendering and placement
• + Realistic PBR material textures on the fish and rice
• + Superior composition with a clean, tiered diorama base

• − The lighting is a bit soft, losing some of the 'pop' seen in the other model

Seedream 4.0

• + Highly vibrant colors and appealing miniature aesthetic
• + Strong adherence to the 'cartoon' aspect of the prompt
• + Good variety of sushi types shown

• − The flag icon is placed awkwardly to the side of the text
• − The text 'SUSHI' is slightly less clean than Model A
• − The shadows are slightly harsher, losing some of the 'gentle lighting' feel

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent adherence to the 'caricature' style with hand-drawn line art and exaggerated head proportions.
• + Successfully incorporates all elements: TV news desk, studio camera, multiple dogs, and a hockey rink setting.
• + Maintains clear facial resemblance to the source image while adapting it to the art style.

Seedream 4.0

• + Preserves the original background and clothing (denim shirt) from the source image more accurately.
• + Successfully creates an exaggerated bobble-head style caricature of the person.
• + Includes the hockey stick and television news desk requested.

• − Misses the 'dogs' plural requirement, featuring only one dog that looks like a standard photo insert.
• − The hand holding the phone and the hand holding the microphone have significant anatomical issues.
• − The blend between the photographic background and the caricature subject is jarring.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent anatomical realism for all four animal types.
• + Subtle, natural lighting with very clean fur textures.
• + High level of detail in both the foreground subjects and the background meadow.

• − The scene is static and lacks the 'playfully chasing' and 'tumbling' action requested.
• − Includes an extra bunny not specified in the prompt.

Seedream 4.0

• + Captures the 'playfully chasing' and 'tumbling' action much more effectively.
• + Dynamic composition with animals in active poses.
• + Beautiful use of dew sparkles and directional god rays.

• − The kitten has a slightly distorted, less realistic face compared to the others.
• − The fox's red fur is a bit oversaturated, looking less photorealistic than Image A.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent character likeness preservation to the source image
• + High-quality detail in the textures and linework
• + Perfectly captures the 'dreamy background' request with a floral field

• − The art style leans more towards modern digital anime than classic hand-painted Ghibli
• − The woman in the foreground is significantly sharper than the background elements

Seedream 4.0

• + Perfectly captures the authentic hand-painted watercolor Ghibli aesthetic
• + Excellent use of soft pastel colors and paper texture
• + Faces are redesigned in a style more characteristic of Studio Ghibli

• − Lost some of the specific facial expressions/features from the original people
• − The background is very abstract compared to the structured environment of the source

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent preservation of the source image's identity and facial details.
• + The blowing hair is rendered with high detail and realistic movement.
• + The flying leaves are sharp and well-integrated into the scene without obscuring the subject.

• − The wind direction appears slightly inconsistent, with hair blowing outward in both directions.

Seedream 4.0

• + Successfully captures a sense of speed and motion through motion blur on the leaves.
• + Introduces a warm, energetic lighting effect to enhance the 'lively' mood requested.

• − Significant loss of facial sharpness and detail compared to the source image.
• − The overall image quality appears softer and less defined than the original.

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent vector emblem style with clean lines
• + Accurate spelling and inclusion of all text within a cohesive banner design
• + Balanced minimalist composition that feels professional

• − The 'E' in 'Caffè' uses a generic grave accent rather than a stylized one

Seedream 4.0

• + Higher quality texture on the background and logo elements
• + More dynamic use of light and shadow on the cloche dome
• + Accurate spelling of the name with a clear font

• − The logo is fragmented with the name floating separately from the emblem
• − Lines are slightly less crisp, looking more like an illustration than a vector logo

FLUX.2 [dev]

• + Excellent adherence to the color palette including the specific navy and muted red.
• + Clean, sophisticated vector icons that feel professional.
• + Includes secondary details like the astronaut names with high legibility.

• − Layout is a grid rather than a chronological flow.
• − Text rendering becomes garbled on some labels like 'LTUREST LIAMDIIES'.

Seedream 4.0

• + Follows the logical flow of a mission trajectory from left to right.
• + Accurately represents icons for Earth and Moon orbits as requested.
• + Good use of numbering to guide the eye through the steps.

• − Typography is inconsistent and includes spelling errors like 'Surfcce'.
• − Graphic design style is slightly cluttered with many competing elements.
• − Failed to properly separate steps 5 and 6 into distinct icons as requested.