Seedream 4.0 ByteDance vs Vidu Q2 ShengShu Technology

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent adherence to lighting instructions with realistic soft window light.
• + Clean, minimalist composition that feels very photographic.
• + Accurate spatial arrangement of all requested objects.

• − The glass cube has a mirrored base which wasn't explicitly requested and slightly confuses the transparency.
• − The plant is very small and quite blurry compared to the rest of the scene.

Vidu Q2

• + High level of detail in the textures of the book cover and wooden table.
• + The plant is vibrant and well-integrated into the composition.
• + Clear depiction of the blue sphere with a soft matte finish.

• − The plant appears to be both behind and partially merged with the cube structure erroneously.
• − The lighting is quite harsh and multi-directional despite the request for soft window light from the left.

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent character preservation, maintaining the man's hair, scarf, and plaid coat patterns accurately.
• + High source car preservation, keeping the specific Rolls-Royce details consistent with the original.
• + Realistic composition with appropriate motion blur and lighting for a coastal drive.

• − Internal lighting on the man's face feels slightly flat compared to the bright background.

Vidu Q2

• + Successfully places the man and car in the requested California coastline setting.
• + Good lighting and color saturation.

• − Significantly fails to preserve the man's appearance, changing his hair style and removing his distinctive plaid coat and scarf.
• − Changes the car's steering wheel side from left-hand drive (implied) to right-hand drive in a US-based setting.
• − Aggressive sharpening creates a slightly artificial look.

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent adherence to the motion blur request for passing cars.
• + Includes a realistic reflection of the bicycle in the puddle.
• + The tools on the ground add a great level of contextual detail.

• − The bike anatomy is slightly warped, specifically how the frame connects near the man's hands.
• − Faces and hands are a bit soft in texture.

Vidu Q2

• + Exceptional skin and hand texture, showing realistic aging and veins.
• + Very convincing 'imperfect framing' that feels like a genuine candid close-up.
• + The bicycle's mechanical details like the chain and derailleur are more realistically rendered.

• − Failed to include the requested motion blur for the passing car.
• − The car in the background is too sharp and frozen in time for the specified prompt.

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent depiction of torchlight and bokeh sparks in the background.
• + Skin textures, grime, and scars feel very realistic and gritty.
• + Accurate interpretation of 'ornate engraved plate armor' with visible wear.

• − The larger beads in the hair look slightly like modern plastic/wood rather than medieval ornaments.
• − Slightly less clarity on the leather strap stitching compared to the competitor.

Vidu Q2

• + Exceptional detail on the fabric underlayer and leather strap buckles.
• + Very sharp focus and high-resolution textures across the entire armor set.
• + Clear, distinct hair braiding with subtle metallic beads.

• − The lighting feels more like studio lighting than naturalistic warm torchlight.
• − The skin and expression look a bit more like a digital render/character model rather than a lifelike person.
• − The background bokeh is less atmospheric and lacks the requested 'bokeh sparks' effect.

Seedream 4.0

• + Clean typography with perfect spelling of heading categories.
• + High-quality, realistic food photography.
• + Bold sans-serif font matches the requested style.

• − Lacks actual menu items, descriptions, and prices.
• − Composition is more of a collage than a functional menu layout.
• − The grid layout feels slightly unorganized with varying image aspect ratios.

Vidu Q2

• + Successfully replicates a full menu structure including prices and item descriptions.
• + Excellent use of vibrant accents and professional formatting.
• + Good balance of text and imagery in a functional two-column layout.

• − Text consists of gibberish/hallucinated characters.
• − The food images are repetitive and less distinct compared to the other model.
• − Heading titles have spelling errors like 'APECIZEN' and 'AppEczYERS'.

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent sense of motion with circular motion blur trails
• + Realistic lighting and shadow integration with the environment
• + Creative fiery text effect on the main title

• − Failed to provide the requested price of €6.99, showing €5.99 instead
• − Shows two separate burger assemblies which slightly deviates from 'one burger exploded'

Vidu Q2

• + Perfect adherence to text content including the correct €6.99 price
• + Very vibrant and punchy 'exploded' composition that fills the frame
• + Detailed texture on the patties and fresh ingredients

• − The pricing starburst symbol is a malformed character rather than a clear Euro sign
• − The background is somewhat flat and repetitive compared to the foreground

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent text rendering with no spelling errors.
• + Authentic chalk texture and natural smudging on the board.
• + Strong adherence to the requested tone and layout.

• − The board frame is slightly cut off on the left.

Vidu Q2

• + Good blackboard aesthetic with realistic chalk dusting.
• + Follows the general layout requested in the prompt.

• − Numerous spelling errors including 'Truffe Musshoom', 'Octopd', and 'Lemepun'.
• − Text at the bottom becomes garbled and illegible.
• − Pricing doesn't match the prompt precisely ($34 vs $24).

Seedream 4.0

• + Matches the background color and lighting from Image 1.
• + Attempts to incorporate the scarf from Image 2.

• − Fails to maintain the character's face, features, or short hair from Image 2.
• − Distorts the pose and anatomy, specifically the legs and feet.
• − Very poor visual quality with muddy textures and artifacts on the face.

Vidu Q2

• + Excellent character preservation with accurate face, sunglasses, and hairstyle from Image 2.
• + Perfect adherence to the dynamic pose and leg crossing from Image 1.
• + High visual clarity and natural-looking integration of the clothing and accessories.

• − Added a watch that was not in either source image.

Seedream 4.0

• + High visual fidelity on textures like the spacesuit and horse hair.
• + Dynamic cinematic lighting and composition.
• + Reasonable attempt at a surreal space environment.

• − Failed the negative constraint; the astronaut is riding the horse.
• − Anatomical issues with the horse's neck and chest integration.

Vidu Q2

• + Vibrant, colorful cosmic aesthetic.
• + Clear, high-contrast details in the astronaut's gear.
• + Artistic interpretation of the horse's coat as a nebula.

• − Failed the negative constraint; the astronaut is riding the horse.
• − The horse's front legs exhibit strange anatomical warping.

Seedream 4.0

• + Successfully replicates the specific pose and hand positions of the model in Image 2.
• + Includes the specific shoes and ring details from the source outfit image.
• + Faithfully replicates the plaid pattern and scarf fringe from Image 2.

• − Significantly alters the subject's facial features and adds facial hair not present in Image 1.
• − The image quality is significantly lower, appearing pixelated and blurry.
• − Changes the hair style andvitiligo pattern on the subject's face.

Vidu Q2

• + Maintains much higher visual clarity and resolution compared to the other model.
• + Better preserves the original subject's facial structure and lack of facial hair.
• + Correctly integrates the sunglasses and jewelry while maintaining a closer match to the environment's lighting.

• − Adds a strange cutout/transparency effect to the sleeve showing vitiligo skin where there should be coat fabric.
• − Changes the subject's pose from the original leaning stance in Image 1 to a more upright standing position.
• − Fails to include the shoes from Image 2 as requested.

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent texture on the capybara's fur
• + Natural, soft lighting that blends the characters with the night city environment
• + Captures the bored, distracted expression of the passenger perfectly

• − The capybara's paws look more like human-monkey hands than capybara feet
• − The 'TAT' text on the hat is slightly nonsensical

Vidu Q2

• + Very clean and modern interior lighting with realistic reflections on the leather seats
• + Strong composition that gives a clear view of both subjects and the city background
• + Accurate depiction of a formal chauffeur-style hat

• − The capybara's head looks somewhat like a digital overlay rather than being integrated into the lighting
• − The passenger's hand holding the phone appears slightly distorted

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent text rendering with near-perfect spelling across all fields.
• + Atmospheric cinematic lighting that effectively blends the jack-o-lantern with the environment.
• + Followed all prompt details including the specific thorny border and date.

• − The text on the scroll banner contains slight rendering glitches on some letters.

Vidu Q2

• + Clear gothic font style selection.
• + Vibrant illustration style with high contrast.

• − Significant spelling errors in the title and sub-text.
• − Incorrect date provided (30.70.2025 instead of 30.10.2026).
• − The composition feels flatter and less cinematic than the other model.

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent source preservation, keeping almost every pixel of the face, glasses, and background identical to the original.
• + Follows the prompt to provide a full, thick head of hair.

• − The hairline and hair texture look artificial and 'pasted on,' lacking a realistic transition to the forehead.
• − The hair shape is slightly uncanny and lacks the nuanced lighting seen in the rest of the image.

Vidu Q2

• + Features much more realistic hair texture with individual strands and a natural-looking style.
• + The lighting on the hair is well-integrated with the scene's environmental light.
• + The hairline is blended reasonably well given the complexity of the addition.

• − Slightly alters the shape of the subject's forehead and brow area compared to the original.
• − The color of the added hair is darker than the subject's beard, creating a slight mismatch.

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent typography rendering and placement
• + Beautiful realistic PBR textures on the fish and roe
• + Perfect adherence to the isometric perspective

• − The 'diorama base' is just a standard sushi plate rather than a platform
• − Minor lighting clipping on the top-left sushi piece

Vidu Q2

• + Creative use of a literal flag icon integrated with the text
• + Effective use of the raised diorama base as requested
• + Clean 3D cartoon aesthetic

• − The text 'JAPAN' has a slight artifact on the letter N
• − The sushi textures look a bit more like plastic than PBR materials
• − The plate is slightly off-center on the base

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent preservation of the source background elements like the pictures and sofa
• + Accurately represents the 'caricature' style by exaggerating facial features and proportions while maintaining a photographic texture
• + Successfully incorporates all elements including the TV desk, dog, hockey stick, and sports jersey accents

• − The transition between the exaggerated head/neck and the body is slightly jarring
• − The hand holding the phone is anatomically messy with merged fingers

Vidu Q2

• + Strong creative direction by placing the character directly onto a hockey rink
• + Includes multiple dogs and thematic details like paw-print notes and a puck
• + Clean, high-quality cartoon illustration style

• − Fails to preserve any of the original image's environment
• − The hand holding the microphone has an incorrect finger count and orientation
• − The facial likeness is significantly less recognizable compared to the source image

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent dynamic composition with animals actually interacting and tumbling together
• + Beautifully rendered lighting with clear god rays and sparkling dew effects
• + Each of the four distinct animals requested is present and recognizable

• − The fox kit has a slightly saturated, almost illustrated color palette compared to the other animals
• − The kitten's mouth area is slightly anatomically awkward

Vidu Q2

• + High clarity and sharpness across all subjects in the meadow
• + Captures a wide variety of colorful butterflies as requested

• − Failed to follow animal count by including two golden retrievers and missing the bunny in favor of a hybrid-looking creature
• − Composition feels more static and staged rather than tumbling and playful
• − The fox appears to be floating unnaturally in the background

Seedream 4.0

• + Successfully captures a true hand-painted watercolor aesthetic reminiscent of Studio Ghibli.
• + Applies soft, dreamy lighting and pastel tones as requested.
• + Simplifies the characters into a distinct anime-style that fits the Ghibli theme well.

• − Loses the background context entirely, replacing it with abstract watercolor washes.
• − The woman in the foreground loses her distinct features and hair texture significantly.

Vidu Q2

• + Preserves excellent structural details from the original image including the background street scene.
• + Maintains the distinct facial expressions and recognizable features of the subjects.
• + Balancing anime stylization with realistic proportions effectively.

• − The line work is a bit too clean and digital, lacking the requested 'hand-painted texture'.
• − The lighting is less 'dreamy' compared to Model A.

Seedream 4.0

• + Successfully added windswept hair and flying leaves.
• + Maintains the facial identity and body proportions of the woman very well.

• − The overall image clarity has been decreased, appearing softer and slightly blurry compared to the original.
• − Introduced a strange lens flare/sunburst artifact in the top right corner that wasn't requested.

Vidu Q2

• + Excellent preservation of the original image's sharpness and clarity.
• + The hair motion is elegant and maintains high texture detail.
• + The leaves have a crisp, vibrant look that complements the scene.

• − Minor artifact where a leaf overlaps with the dog's back.

Seedream 4.0

• + Perfect text rendering for all elements.
• + Excellent composition with a clean vector emblem style.
• + Accurate adherence to the requested warm brown and cream color palette.

• − The steam effect is a bit simple compared to the cloche shading.

Vidu Q2

• + The cloche illustration has nice highlighting.
• + Captures the cream and brown color scheme well.

• − Significant text errors including 'CAFFE FARMIIN' and 'Esttt'.
• − Repetitive, garbled text at the bottom of the logo.
• − The banner layout is cluttered compared to the requested minimalist style.

Seedream 4.0

• + Strong text readability on the labels and names.
• + Correctly follows the 6-step logical flow requested in the prompt.
• + Logical layout where the trajectory physically connects the Earth and Moon.

• − Step 5 and 6 appear combined or confused in the text layout.
• − The rocket icon and lunar module icon vary significantly in level of detail, breaking consistency.

Vidu Q2

• + Beautiful, consistent flat-vector styling and color palette.
• + Excellent use of the 'NASA-inspired' light gray and white aesthetic.
• + High-quality iconography that feels part of a single set.

• − Severe spelling errors throughout almost all text labels.
• − Failed to follow the 6-step numerical sequence, skipping numbers and doubling up on icons.
• − Confused the crew count, showing five astronauts instead of three.