Seedream 4.0 ByteDance vs Wan 2.7 Alibaba

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent lighting and atmospheric mood
• + Accurate glass reflections and refractions
• + Clean composition with a very clear blue sphere

• − The glass cube seems to lack a back panel, or it is optically invisible
• − Minimal texture on the red book

Wan 2.7

• + Very high detail on the wood and book textures
• + Complex and realistic plant anatomy
• + Accurate physics in the sphere's reflection on the bottom glass

• − Confusing glass geometry with unnecessary vertical struts inside the cube
• − Ghosting/extra sphere reflected on the left that doesn't align with the environment

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent preservation of the subject's identity, clothing, and hairstyle.
• + Flawlessly integrates the car and driver into a new scenic environment.
• + Maintains the specific lighting and details of the car from the source image.

• − Minor blurring where the driver's hand meets the steering wheel.

Wan 2.7

• + Good background generation of the California coastline.
• + Accurately captures the motion blur of the road.

• − Completely fails to preserve the identity of the man from the source image.
• − The driver's face is distorted and unrecognizable.
• − Failed to include the man's distinct hairstyle and clothing.

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent adherence to the motion blur and 50mm lens depth-of-field requirements.
• + Highly realistic skin textures and interaction with tools on the ground.
• + Stronger 'candid' feel with the imperfect framing and street atmosphere.

• − Anatomical issues with the man's right hand and its connection to the bicycle.
• − The bicycle's rear structure is physically impossible near the hub and chain stay.

Wan 2.7

• + Natural composition and very realistic rendering of wet pavement and clothing.
• + The man's pose and anatomy are more coherent than in Model A.
• + Great environmental storytelling with the background pedestrians and city architecture.

• − Fails to include the requested 'motion blur from passing cars' as background cars are static.
• − The depth of field is deeper than the 'shallow' 50mm look requested.

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent handling of warm torchlight and bloom effects
• + Superior texture on the leather straps and metal engravings
• + Highly lifelike eyes with realistic catchlights

• − The braids are somewhat messy and lose definition at the top

Wan 2.7

• + Ornate armor engravings are very sharp and detailed
• + Includes more visible scars that match the 'battle-worn' prompt
• + Better execution of the hair braiding and bead placement

• − Lighting feels slightly flatter and less atmospheric than the competitor
• − The leather straps look a bit more like plastic compared to the tactile grain in Model A

Seedream 4.0

• + Strong, legible bold sans-serif text
• + High-quality photography with vibrant colors

• − Lacks the actual structure of a menu like prices and descriptions
• − The 'grid' layout is very basic and lacks professional design depth

Wan 2.7

• + Successfully creates a complete, professional menu layout with prices and logos
• + Excellent adherence to the grid request with high photographic coherence
• + Sophisticated use of vibrant accents and branding elements

• − Minor spelling errors in small body text
• − The presentation includes background props not requested in the core menu design prompt

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent photorealistic texture on the meat and bun
• + Very dynamic composition with realistic motion blur
• + High-quality 'Magic Burger' text integration with realistic flames

• − Incorrect price displayed as €5.99 instead of €6.99
• − The burger is split into two halves rather than a fully exploded single stack of components

Wan 2.7

• + Perfect adherence to text prompts including the correct price (€6.99)
• + Better 'exploded' view with all individual components clearly separated
• + Polished graphic design suitable for a print ad

• − The lighting on the burger components is slightly flat compared to the background
• − Floating sesame seeds look a bit disconnected from the composition

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent adherence to the 'realistic chalk handwriting' request with natural variations.
• + Authentic chalk texture and smudging on the board surface.
• + Perfect completion of the truncated prompt text with logical and accurate content.

• − Slightly tighter cropping on the board than Model B.

Wan 2.7

• + Perfect text accuracy and spelling.
• + Clean and well-centered composition.

• − The text looks like a digital font or a sticker rather than actual chalk.
• − Fails the negative constraint of 'no printed or digital fonts anywhere'.
• − Lines are too uniform and lack the gritty texture of real chalk.

Seedream 4.0

• + Successfully integrated clothing elements like the checkered scarf and black sweatshirt from the character reference.
• + Attempted to replicate the background and lighting of the source image.
• + Correctly changed the person's gender/identity to match the character reference.

• − Failed to match the exact pose of Image 1, significantly altering the body orientation and limb positions.
• − Anatomical issues including distorted facial features and a missing second foot.
• − Hair is a generic long style that does not match the short, textured cut of the character in Image 2.

Wan 2.7

• + Perfectly preserved the pose and environment of Image 1.

• − Failed significantly on the character reference, ignoring the man, his clothing, and his traits entirely.
• − Did not perform the requested edit; it essentially returned a slightly cropped/filtered version of Image 1.
• − Completely missed facial and accessory details like the sunglasses and scarf.

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent cinematic lighting and texture on the horse's coat.
• + Realistic reflection of space in the astronaut's visor.
• + Dynamic composition with the rearing horse and dramatic background nebulae.

• − Failed the negative constraint to have the horse on top of the astronaut.
• − Anatomical issues with the horse's chest and how the harness connects.

Wan 2.7

• + Clear, sharp focus on all elements of the image.
• + Good sense of scale with the Earth and multiple celestial bodies.
• + Clean rendering of the astronaut suit.

• − Failed the logic constraint to have the horse on top of the man.
• − Visuals are a bit generic and lack the 'surreal' quality requested.

Seedream 4.0

• + Successfully transferred the pea coat, scarf, and jeans from Image 2.
• + Maintained the approximate pose and lighting of the original scene.

• − Failed to preserve the person's face, blending it with the person from Image 2 instead.
• − Violated the instruction to keep the person's face and hair completely unchanged.
• − Lower overall resolution and clarity compared to Image B.

Wan 2.7

• + Perfectly preserved the original person’s face, skin patterns, and hair.
• + Matches the background and lighting of Image 1 seamlessly.
• + Successfully adapted the pose and body shape while adding clothing.

• − Prompt adherence failure: it hallucinated a new gold-embroidered outfit instead of using the pea coat and scarf from Image 2.
• − Changed the composition from a waist-up shot to a full-body shot, losing the original framing.

Seedream 4.0

• + Perfect composition with the passenger correctly placed in the back seat.
• + Highly realistic fur texture and professional lighting.
• + Accurate interpretation of 'both front paws on the steering wheel'.

Wan 2.7

• + Sharp image quality and high resolution.
• + Interesting taxi driver hat design.

• − Major layout error: the passenger is sitting in the front seat instead of the back seat.
• − The capybara's anatomy appears stiff and less integrated with the jacket.
• − The human passenger's hands and phone interaction have minor artifacts.

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent cinematic lighting and moody atmosphere
• + Highly detailed and realistic texture on the parchment and pumpkin
• + Powerful gothic aesthetics with sharp thorns and webs

• − The scrolling banner text is slightly garbled and difficult to read
• − The overall layout feels a bit cramped near the bottom

Wan 2.7

• + Perfect text rendering for all requested fields
• + Clean, organized composition with a beautiful illustrated border
• + Consistent illustrative style across all elements

• − Lacks the 'cinematic' lighting requested, feeling more like a flat illustration
• − The central artwork box creates a visual disconnect from the parchment background

Seedream 4.0

• + Successfully added a full head of hair.
• + Preserves the background and clothing perfectly.

• − The hair shape is slightly unnatural and stiff, looking a bit like a wig.
• − The hair texture is somewhat blurry compared to the source image's sharpness.

Wan 2.7

• + Highly realistic hair texture and styling.
• + Excellent integration of the hairline with the existing forehead.
• + Flawless preservation of facial features and lighting.

• − None notable; the edit is seamless and follows all instructions.

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent PBR texturing on the salmon and roe
• + Very clean, centered composition
• + Soft, professional studio-style lighting

• − The wasabi has a slightly plastic, stylized look relative to the realistic sushi
• − Text placement feels slightly cramped at the top edge

Wan 2.7

• + Perfectly executed isometric diorama base
• + Excellent font choice and layout for the typography
• + Higher variety of sushi types and garnishes including soy sauce and ginger

• − The scale of the shrimp is slightly disproportionate to the other pieces
• − The textures on the rice grains look a bit tiled and repetitive

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent caricature style with an exaggerated head while maintaining facial likeness
• + Cleverly integrates the hockey theme through jersey sleeves and a hockey stick
• + Preserves the background elements and the subject's original denim shirt effectively

• − The transition from the tiny hand with the microphone to the desk is slightly messy
• − The face in the phone screen doesn't match the caricature's expression

Wan 2.7

• + Very humorous and creative interpretation with dogs wearing hockey helmets
• + Clearly identifies the TV anchor role through a suit and studio screen
• + Strong graphic illustration style that feels very 'caricature'

• − The facial likeness to the original source image is significantly lower than Model A
• − Text in the speech bubble has a misspelling ('Rolee')
• − The composition is a bit cluttered with multiple competing elements

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent dynamic poses that accurately reflect the 'tumbling' and 'joyful' vibe of the prompt.
• + Superior lighting effects with high-quality god rays and integrated dew bokeh.
• + Higher color saturation that enhances the whimsical nature of the scene.

• − The fox's red color is slightly oversaturated, bordering on unnatural.
• − Small anatomical glitch on the kitten's front right paw.

Wan 2.7

• + Realistic fur textures and more accurate animal anatomy, especially on the fox.
• + Clear rendering of the requested species in a stable, standing composition.
• + Great clarity in the foreground wildflowers and morning dew.

• − The composition is a bit static and 'posed' rather than 'tumbling together' as requested.
• − The kitten's paw is awkwardly resting on the bunny's back.
• − Muted color palette compared to the vibrant 'golden sunrise' requested.

Seedream 4.0

• + Perfectly captures the Studio Ghibli character design style with minimalist facial features and expressive eyes.
• + Includes hand-painted watercolor textures and a dreamy, impressionistic background.
• + Accurately recreates the pose and clothing while fully committing to the anime aesthetic.

• − The background loses all architectural detail from the original scene.
• − The woman in the foreground is slightly out of focus, though this fits the painterly style.

Wan 2.7

• + Excellent preservation of the original image's composition, background details, and character likenesses.
• + Applies a nice watercolor wash and soft ink-line texture.
• + Maintains the specific facial expressions of the 'distracted boyfriend' meme characters.

• − Fails to adopt the 'Studio Ghibli' art style, instead looking like a watercolor trace of the original photo.
• − The facial features remain too realistic for the requested anime-inspired illustration.

Seedream 4.0

• + Successfully added motion to the hair with a convincing wind effect
• + Included flying leaves as requested
• + Maintained the subject's likability and smile

• − The leash is disconnected from the dog's collar and floats in the air
• − Introduced a harsh, unnatural solar flare artifact in the top right corner
• − Background details like the trees have become slightly blurry

Wan 2.7

• + Excellent hair motion that looks natural and detailed
• + Integrated flying leaves seamlessly with motion blur
• + Highly accurate source preservation with no broken components like the leash

• − The leaf on the dog's chest is a bit distracting
• − Minor loss of sharpness in the dog's fur compared to the original

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent typography including the correct 'è' accent.
• + Very effective vintage paper texture and shading on the cloche.
• + Clean, minimalist composition that works well as a logo.

• − The steam lines are a bit generic compared to the rest of the illustration.

Wan 2.7

• + Detailed frame and badge-style composition.
• + Good use of color palette and geometric balance.

• − Spelling error in the main name: 'Florion' instead of 'Florian'.
• − The cloche dome is transparent, which looks more like a modern cake stand than a classic metal cloche.
• − The 'Est. 1720' text is slightly off-center and cramped within the banner.

Seedream 4.0

• + Strong iconography and clean vector illustations
• + High readability for large labels and clear numerical progression
• + The lunar module illustration is detailed and technically impressive

• − Step 5 and 6 are merged awkwardly in the text labels
• − Text includes several misspellings like 'Surfcce' and 'Tranquility' (missing an 'l')
• − The 'Landing 6' typography is disproportionately large and breaks the flow

Wan 2.7

• + Excellent professional poster composition and layout
• + Included significant extra details like mission dates, altitude, and NASA branding
• + Strong adherence to the requested NASA-inspired color palette and flat-vector style

• − Several spelling errors in the small supporting text (e.g., 'Descript', 'Tranquiliry', 'Aaroanutics')
• − The icons are quite small relative to the overall poster size
• − The background stars are somewhat cluttered and visually distracting