FLUX.2 [max] vs Seedream 4.5
Head-to-head across 17 challenges
FLUX.2 [max]
56.5%
win rate
Ties
13.0%
Seedream 4.5
30.4%
win rate
Challenge Results
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.”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Excellent texture on the red book cover.
- + Highly realistic lighting and shallow depth of field.
- + Accurate cube geometry with clean edges.
- − The blue sphere is relatively large compared to the 'small' descriptor in the prompt.
- − The glass floor of the cube appears to be a mirror rather than clear glass.
Seedream 4.5
- + Follows the 'small' sphere instruction more accurately than model A.
- + Excellent rendering of the plant's visibility and distortion through the glass panes.
- + Realistic refractions on the table surface.
- − The red book lacks the fine grain texture found in Model A.
- − The glass cube edges look slightly less sharp in terms of 3D rendering.
Verdict: Both models followed the spatial instructions perfectly. FLUX.2 [max] produced a more aesthetically pleasing image with superior textures and lighting, while Seedream 4.5 better captured the scale of the 'small' sphere and the specific visual effect of seeing the plant through multiple layers of glass. FLUX.2 [max] is the winner due to its overall professional photographic quality.
Man and Car in California
Editing“Make a photo of the man driving the car down the California coastline”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Excellent preservation of the car's exterior and lighting
- + Accurate depiction of the California coastline
- + Maintains the man's distinct hairstyle and clothing patterns
- − The man appears to be floating/poorly integrated into the driver's seat
- − The scale of the driver is slightly too small for the car cabin
Seedream 4.5
- + Perfectly captures the man's facial features and joyful expression
- + Highly realistic integration of the character into the car interior
- + Preserves the specific shoes and cargo pants from the source image
- − The car door is missing its exterior paneling/skin
- − Mechanical issues with the steering wheel and pedals
Verdict: FLUX.2 [max] succeeded at the wide-angle composition and environmental context but struggled with the physical placement of the person in the seat. Seedream 4.5 did an incredible job preserving the person's identity, clothes, and smile, and placing him naturally in the car, but it failed significantly on the vehicle's structural integrity (the door is missing its outer shell). Overall, FLUX.2 [max] is the more 'complete' photo despite the poor character integration.
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.”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Excellent anatomical detail in the hands and face.
- + Superior bike mechanics and realism, including individual spokes and raindrops on surfaces.
- + Naturalistic lighting and high-quality asphalt texture with realistic puddles.
- − Motion blur on passing cars is less pronounced than requested.
- − Composition is very clean, missing the 'imperfect framing' request slightly.
Seedream 4.5
- + Strong implementation of motion blur from passing traffic.
- + Features a direct gaze that feels candid and emotionally resonant.
- + Good use of warm light reflections on the wet pavement.
- − Poor anatomical details, with the hands appearing distorted and fused with the wrench.
- − The bicycle chain and wheel mechanics are structurally nonsensical.
- − The overall image has a slightly painterly/soft texture compared to the photorealistic requirement.
Verdict: FLUX.2 [max] is the clear winner due to its exceptional technical execution and realism, particularly in the rendering of the man's hands and the complex mechanical parts of the bicycle. While Seedream 4.5 captured the motion blur and mood of the prompt effectively, it failed significantly on anatomical and structural coherence, with mangled hands and an impossible bike chain setup.
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.”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Successfully included all requested sections: appetizers, pizza, and mains.
- + Excellent use of a colorful photo grid as requested.
- + Highly professional layout that resembles a real, usable menu.
Seedream 4.5
- + Clean, minimalist aesthetic with clear vibrant accents.
- + Legible bold sans-serif headers.
- + High-quality, appetizing food photography.
- − Failed to provide a 'photo grid', instead using only three large images.
- − Text content is repetitive and lacks much variation (e.g. 'Restaurant', 'Festaurant' under mains).
- − Layout feels a bit too sparse for a functional menu.
Verdict: FLUX.2 [max] provided a much more comprehensive and accurate interpretation of the prompt, successfully creating a professional menu with a detailed photo grid and all requested categories. While Seedream 4.5 captures the minimalist 'vibe' well, it fails on the specific layout requirement of a grid and has weaker text content.
Bald man challenge
Editing“Give the person a full, thick head of natural hair with realistic texture, density, and a natural hairline. Preserve facial features and lighting.”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Excellent realism in hair texture and stray strands
- + Highly natural integration with existing sideburns and beard
- + Perfectly preserves original lighting and background
- − The volume of the hair is perhaps slightly exaggerated for a 'natural' request
Seedream 4.5
- + Successfully adds a full head of hair that fits the head shape well
- + Maintains facial features and clothing accurately
- − The hairline transition is slightly blurry and lacks fine detail
- − Hair texture appears somewhat soft and painted compared to the original beard
Verdict: Both models successfully interpreted the edit instruction, but FLUX.2 (max) is the clear winner due to the superior realism of the hair texture. FLUX.2 (max) produced sharp, individual strands that match the quality of the original beard, whereas Seedream 4.5 created a softer, less detailed hair mass that doesn't blend as seamlessly with the high-resolution source.
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.”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Perfectly nails the clean, soft cartoon 3D aesthetic with refined textures.
- + Excellent composition with a multi-tiered diorama base that feels more structured.
- + Very clean and professional text rendering with accurate spacing and an integrated flag icon.
- − The wooden board has a minor visual seam/glitch running through the center left.
Seedream 4.5
- + High-detail textures on the sushi, particularly the rice grains and salmon marbling.
- + Solid adherence to the text prompts and isometric perspective.
- − The diorama base has a rough, sandy texture that conflicts with the 'soft refined' request.
- − Depth of field is a bit shallow, causing significant blurring at the front and back corners of the base.
- − Graphic elements at the top feel less integrated into the overall scene compared to Model A.
Verdict: FLUX.2 [max] captures the 'soft refined' and 'ultra-clean' aesthetic of the prompt much better than Seedream 4.5, which used a gritty, porous texture for the diorama base. FLUX.2 [max] also provides a more balanced composition and better-integrated typography, creating a more professional-looking final graphic.
Night Sky Transformation
Editing“Change the scene to night: a deep, dark sky with subtle, glistening stars visible behind the mountain.”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Perfectly captures the nighttime atmosphere with a dark, deep sky
- + Excellent source preservation of the village and mountain structures
- + Subtle and realistic star placement
- − The mountain peak is a bit dark, losing some of the iconic silhouette clarity
Seedream 4.5
- + High source preservation, keeping almost all village details identical
- + Includes requested stars in the background
- − Inconsistent lighting, as the mountain peak is still brightly lit by an orange sunset glow despite the night sky
- − Shadows on the mountain do not match the dark sky environment
Verdict: FLUX.2 [max] is the clear winner as it successfully transforms the entire scene's lighting to match the requested night theme. While Seedream 4.5 preserves the original details well, it fails to logically adjust the lighting on the mountain peak, which still appears to be reflecting a sunset that is no longer present.
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.”
AI judge analysis unavailable for this challenge.
Over-the-top cartoon caricature
Editing“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.”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Successfully incorporates all elements (hockey, dogs, anchor) into a cohesive illustration style.
- + Creative interpretation with dogs as co-anchors and players in the background.
- + Strong adherence to the 'caricature' and 'humorous' aspects of the prompt.
- − Completely loses the likeness and photographic realism of the source person in favor of a 2D cartoon style.
- − Background from source image is entirely replaced.
Seedream 4.5
- + Excellent preservation of the subject's facial features while applying a classic big-head caricature effect.
- + High visual quality and realistic rendering of the desk, equipment, and dog.
- + Maintains the background setting and clothing from the source image remarkably well.
- − The scale of the hands is slightly too small even for a caricature.
- − The hockey stick and gloves look a bit like clips-ons at the edge of the frame.
Verdict: Seedream 4.5 is the clear winner as it successfully creates a caricature that actually looks like the person in the source image, whereas FLUX.2 [max] defaults to a generic 2D cartoon. Seedream 4.5 also manages to blend the new elements (news desk, hockey gear, dog) into the existing environment of the source image with much better preservation of detail.
Victorian Greenhouse Oasis
Text-to-Image“Hyper-photorealistic interior of a lush Victorian glass greenhouse filled with exotic tropical plants, vibrant blooming orchids, tall ferns, colorful butterflies in flight, sunlight filtering through ornate glass roof creating realistic caustics and dew on leaves, intricate iron framework visible, misty atmosphere, 8K masterpiece.”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Excellent architectural scale and structural logic in the iron framework
- + Great variety of flora including realistic palm trees and orchids
- + Natural lighting and realistic atmospheric perspective
- − The butterflies look somewhat small and repetitive in placement
- − The mist is very subtle, almost unnoticeable
Seedream 4.5
- + Stellar execution of 'caustics and dew' with beautiful water droplets on leaves
- + Vibrant, creative use of stained glass in the Victorian roof
- + Stronger sense of depth and misty atmosphere
- − The butterflies are slightly oversized relative to the environment
- − Architectural ironwork is less complex and detailed compared to Model A
Verdict: FLUX.2 [max] provides a more realistic and structurally sound architectural space with a balanced composition, while Seedream 4.5 excels at capturing the magical atmosphere, specific textures like dew droplets, and artistic lighting. Seedream 4.5 is the preferred choice for strictly following the textural 'dew' and 'mist' parts of the prompt with high visual impact.
Heroic Super Hero Portrait
Text-to-Image“Hyper-photorealistic full-body portrait of a female superhero standing triumphantly on a New York skyscraper rooftop at golden sunset, wearing a classic modest superhero costume with flowing cape, chest emblem, gloves, and boots in red and blue colors, practical design, short hair, strong determined heroic expression looking into the distance, powerful confident stance with hands on hips and cape billowing dramatically in the wind, detailed urban cityscape background, warm natural sunlight with sharp shadows and fabric highlights, ultra-sharp textures on suit, hair, and concrete, 8K masterpiece, empowering family-friendly style.”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Excellent full-body composition with strong vertical lines matching the skyscraper setting.
- + Highly detailed texture on the suit and realistic light scattering across the urban background.
- + Natural, clean rendering of the face and hands with realistic muscle definition.
- − The cape physics look a bit heavy rather than 'billowing dramatically' in the wind.
- − The suit design is a bit overly complex/modern compared to the 'classic' request.
Seedream 4.5
- + Captures the 'billowing dramatically' cape request much better than Model A.
- + Closer adherence to the 'classic' superhero costume aesthetic with a simpler design.
- + Strong atmospheric lighting that emphasizes the golden sunset theme.
- − The character's right leg appears awkwardly thick or poorly proportioned compared to the left.
- − The face suffers from slight blurring and less detail than Model A.
- − Lower overall resolution and clarity in the background cityscape.
Verdict: FLUX.2 [max] produces a much higher quality image in terms of resolution, anatomical correctness, and realistic textures, making it look truly 'hyper-photorealistic'. While Seedream 4.5 captures the 'classic' suit and the 'billowing cape' prompt slightly better, it fails on technical execution, particularly with the odd proportions of the character's legs and a softer focus on the face.
Neutral Expression to Genuine Smile
Editing{
"action": "image_edit",
"reference": "uploaded neutral portrait",
"change": "Warm genuine Duchenne smile: lips curved up, slight natural teeth, soft eye crinkles, subtle cheek raise",
"details": "Realistic smiling skin (dimples if present, soft cheek shadows), slightly brighter eyes; keep exact eye shape/color/iris",
"preserve_exact": "Face identity/structure, eyes/nose/lips/eyebrows, hair, skin texture/pores/freckles, makeup, clothing, head pose, background, lighting, shadows, framing",
"no_changes": "No face shape change, no new features, no gaze shift, no hair/clothing/lighting/background edits",
"style": "Ultra-photorealistic 8K portrait, sharp face focus, natural soft lighting, realistic skin glow"
}
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Excellent Duchenne smile with realistic eye crinkling and cheek raising.
- + Preserves high-frequency skin texture and freckles well.
- + Successfully captures the requested 'warm' and 'genuine' expression.
- − Slightly changes the width of the lower face compared to the original.
- − Tiny artifacts visible in the teeth area.
Seedream 4.5
- + Very high adherence to the original facial structure.
- + Clean rendering of teeth and lips.
- + Maintains the original eye shape perfectly.
- − The smile is less 'Duchenne' as requested; the eyes lack the natural crinkling seen in Model A.
- − The expression feels a bit more posed and less 'warm/genuine'.
Verdict: Both models did an excellent job preserving the identity and surroundings of the source image. FLUX.2 [max] achieved a more convincing and expressive 'Duchenne' smile with realistic muscles engaging around the eyes, though Seedream 4.5 was slightly better at maintaining the exact original face shape and skin detail clarity.
Studio Ghibli Anime Style
Editing“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”
AI judge analysis unavailable for this challenge.
Intricate Floral Mandala
Text-to-Image“Perfectly symmetrical mandala made entirely of real flowers, petals, leaves, fruits, and seeds in vibrant natural colors, intricate layered patterns with radial symmetry, top-down view on a soft neutral background, hyper-detailed organic textures and subtle shadows, photorealistic, 8K masterpiece.”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Excellent adherence to the 'perfectly symmetrical' requirement.
- + Highly detailed and realistic rendering of orange slices, seeds, and leaves.
- + Superior technical quality with sharp, consistent focus across the entire mandala.
- − Colors are slightly more muted than 'vibrant', leaning towards an earthy palette.
Seedream 4.5
- + Vibrant and warm color palette that feels more floral.
- + Dynamic lighting with deep shadows that give the image a sense of depth.
- − Fails the 'perfectly symmetrical' requirement, with many elements misaligned or mismatched across axes.
- − Some elements appear slightly blurred or have lower fidelity in the center.
Verdict: FLUX.2 [max] followed the prompt's core requirement of perfect symmetry much better than Seedream 4.5, which produced an asymmetrical and somewhat messy arrangement. While Seedream 4.5 had more vibrant colors, FLUX.2 [max] provided a superior photorealistic quality where every seed and leaf petal is crisply defined and logically placed.
Golden Hour Stroll
Editing“Add dynamic motion to this photo: make hair blow in the wind, add leaves flying, energetic and lively feel.”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Excellent preservation of the original person's face and clothing details.
- + Realistic wind-blown hair effect that maintains hair texture.
- + High resolution and clarity consistent with the source image.
- − The flying leaves look somewhat static and lack motion blur.
- − A slight artifact appears on the woman's left hand (extra finger/distorted pose).
Seedream 4.5
- + Strong sense of movement with motion-blurred leaves in the foreground.
- + Effective dynamic hair effect that flows outward naturally.
- + Lighting is adjusted to feel more 'energetic' and sunny.
- − The woman's face has been significantly altered from the source image.
- − Proportions of the legs and the dog's position have shifted slightly.
- − Lower overall sharpness compared to the original and Model A.
Verdict: FLUX.2 [max] succeeded in preserving the identity and details of the original subjects while adding the requested elements, though it introduced a minor hand artifact. Seedream 4.5 captured a much better sense of motion through the use of depth and blur, but failed as an edit by completely changing the woman's face and slightly altering the composition. FLUX.2 [max] is preferred for its superior source preservation.
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.”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Perfect adherence to text, including the grave accent on 'Caffè'.
- + Clean, professional vector style with sophisticated typography.
- + Balanced composition with a subtle parchment texture.
- − The 'Est. 1720' text is slightly off-center within the banner.
Seedream 4.5
- + Bold, clear design suitable for high-visibility signage.
- + Accurate spelling and date inclusion.
- + Good use of negative space for the cloche silhouette.
- − The banner is a flat rectangular bar with detached tail ends, which lacks structural logic.
- − The spacing and rotation of the letters in 'Florian' are slightly uneven.
Verdict: FLUX.2 [max] produced a much more realistic and professionally designed logo, featuring elegant typography and a cohesive banner design. Seedream 4.5 is successful in its bold interpretation, but the broken banner geometry and less refined kerning make it feel less like a finished vector emblem.
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.”
AI Judge Analysis
FLUX.2 [max]
- + Excellent text rendering with almost perfect spelling.
- + Included creative astronaut icons that go beyond the base prompt.
- + Strong adherence to the NASA-inspired color palette.
- − The sequence of steps is illogical, jumping from Earth Orbit to Lunar Orbit and then back to Translunar.
- − Iconography for the Translunar step features a strange arc that doesn't clearly represent the concept.
Seedream 4.5
- + Perfect chronological ordering of the six requested steps.
- + Very clean, professional infographic layout with numbered markers.
- + Excellent Saturn V and Lunar Module icons that look authentic to the mission.
- − The 'Descent' icon shows a satellite instead of a descending lunar module.
- − Spelling of Tranquility is missing a letter ('Tranquility' vs 'Tranquillity' or 'Tranquility' vs 'Tranquiity' in A).
Verdict: Both models handled the prompt well, but Seedream 4.5 is the clear winner for its superior infographic layout and logical flow. While FLUX.2 [max] had slightly better text rendering, its steps were placed in a confusing, non-sequential order, whereas Seedream 4.5 correctly followed the timeline of the mission and used higher-quality vector illustrations.
FLUX.2 [max]
Black Forest Labs' flagship image generation model delivering state-of-the-art quality with exceptional realism, precision, and consistency for both text-to-image and advanced image editing
Seedream 4.5
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