Black Forest Labs' distilled 9 billion parameter image generation model with sub-second inference and multi-reference support
Settled by community votes across 4 shared challenges, with an AI judge weighing in on each.
FLUX.2 [klein] 9B
21.3
arena score
#7 of 23 in Image Editing
Skill signature
Not enough comparable category data
The chart appears once both models have ratings across at least three shared arena categories.
Seedream 4.5
26.1
arena score
#10 of 44 in Text-to-Image
Vote tally
Where the votes landed
FLUX.2 [klein] 9B
50.0%
win rate
Ties
0.0%
Seedream 4.5
50.0%
win rate
50.0%
0.0% ties
50.0%
Shared challenges
4
Challenge by challenge
The strongest take from each model on every shared challenge, with the AI judge's read.
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 [klein] 9B
Seedream 4.5
100% wins
0% ties
0% wins
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [klein] 9B
- + Excellent typography with clean, professional-looking flame effects on the main title.
- + The 'exploded' effect is clear with distinct vertical separation of the ingredients.
- + Vibrant colors and high-contrast lighting make the burger look appetizing.
- − The 'starburst' element for the price is a bit large and overlaps with the bottom bun.
Seedream 4.5
- + Very dynamic motion blur on the flying vegetable slices enhances the 'exploded' feel.
- + The main title features a highly creative and integrated fire effect that looks very 'magical'.
- + Incorporates realistic embers and a ground-level fire source that adds depth.
- − The burger ingredients are less 'exploded' vertically than request, appearing mostly stacked.
- − The text 'LIMITED TIME ONLY' is slightly less crisp than in the other version.
Verdict: Both models followed the prompt exceptionally well, producing high-quality advertisements. FLUX.2 [klein] 9B offers a cleaner, more commercial look with better vertical separation of the burger layers, while Seedream 4.5 provides a more atmospheric and dynamic scene with superior motion effects and fire integration. FLUX.2 is the likely winner for its clearer ingredient presentation and professional text rendering.
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 [klein] 9B
Seedream 4.5
0% wins
0% ties
100% wins
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [klein] 9B
- + Excellent chalk texture on the board surface
- + Highly consistent font style across all text
- + Clean and readable layout
- − One major spelling error ('Mushrropom')
- − The text looks slightly digital/synthetic despite the texture
Seedream 4.5
- + Perfect spelling of all menu items
- + Highly realistic chalk handwriting with natural variations in stroke weight
- + Beautiful environmental lighting and composition
- − The date line is slightly more cramped than the main title
Verdict: Seedream 4.5 is the clear winner because it followed the text instructions perfectly without spelling errors, whereas FLUX.2 [klein] 9B misspelled 'Mushroom'. Seedream 4.5 also achieved a more authentic 'handwritten' feel with varying line thicknesses that better match the requested chalk aesthetic.
Pose & Character Mashup
EditingEdit 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 [klein] 9B
Seedream 4.5
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [klein] 9B
- + Excellent adherence to the complex leg-crossing pose from Image 1.
- + Accurately replicates the character's facial features, sunglasses, and the specific plaid scarf.
- + Strong integration with the yellow background and red ottoman from the source image.
- − The left hand is rendered as a clenched fist instead of the open gesture from Image 1.
- − One of the feet has an anatomical issue with too many toes.
Seedream 4.5
- + Successfully replicates the character's face, sunglasses, and scarf detail.
- + Good lighting and color matching to the original studio environment.
- − Fails to replicate the specific pose from Image 1, opting for a standard balancing pose instead.
- − The body orientation is upright rather than the dynamic forward-leaning tilt requested.
- − Significant anatomical issue where the legs join the torso.
Verdict: FLUX.2 [klein] 9B is the clear winner as it successfully captured the complex, dynamic pose of Model 1, including the difficult leg crossover and body tilt. Seedream 4.5 maintained the character's appearance but failed to follow the pose instructions, resulting in a much more generic stance with noticeable anatomical glitches in the hip area.
Outfit Transfer Challenge
EditingEdit 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 [klein] 9B
Seedream 4.5
0% wins
0% ties
100% wins
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [klein] 9B
- + Excellent adherence to the clothing style including the coat, scarf, and jeans.
- + Near-perfect facial preservation and hair detail from Image 1.
- + Accurately rendered gold jewelry (watch, bracelet, necklace) inspired by the references.
- − Small facial distortion where the jaw meets the coat collar.
- − The lighting on the jeans is a bit more contrasty than the original beach scene.
Seedream 4.5
- + Successfully integrated the coat and watch from Image 2.
- + Maintained the subject's face and hair very well.
- − Major error in placing vitiligo skin texture on top of the black shirt instead of layering the clothes correctly.
- − Distorted first finger on the hand in the foreground.
- − The scarf pattern and placement are less coherent than in the other model.
Verdict: FLUX.2 [klein] 9B is the clear winner as it successfully dressed the subject in the multilayered outfit while maintaining the integrity of the base person. Seedream 4.5 suffered from a significant conceptual error where it rendered skin textures over the top of the clothing, resulting in a confusing and unrealistic image.
Next steps
Explore each model
ByteDance's latest image generation model unifying text-to-image and image editing in a single architecture, with improved text rendering and 30-40% faster generation than v4.0