GenAI Benchmarks

Model rankings

Headline criteria for every model in the benchmark. Click a model for per-category scores and its full result gallery. The same table answers the routing question for an AI design agent generating on a user's behalf.

“Overall” gives each scored criterion one equal vote: the auto measurements (resolution, latency, cost, transparency, color accuracy) plus the interim Claude-VLM quality tier (text, prompt adherence, composition). Equal votes mean a model that fails one criterion outright cannot buy its way back with cost and speed. To rank by what a specific job needs, use the use-case pages, which reweight the same numbers.
Three cartoon avocados in model jerseys on a winners' podium
Pilot dataset (pilot-0): auto criteria + interim Claude-VLM quality tier, unweighted. Leader pack: within 0.25 of the top overall score.
# Model $ / image p50 latency Native output Overall Details
1
GPT Image 1.5 OpenAI
$0.140 34.0s 1024×1024 3.74 / 5 See scores
2
Recraft V4.1 Recraft
$0.035 10.7s 1024×1024 3.63 / 5 See scores
3
Muse Image Meta
$0.010 17.8s 1920×1280 3.62 / 5 See scores
4
Nano Banana 2 Lite Google
$0.042 4.0s 1408×768 3.58 / 5 See scores
5
Seedream 4.5 ByteDance
$0.040 12.4s 2048×2048 3.53 / 5 See scores
6
Seedream 5.0 Lite ByteDance
$0.035 30.7s 2048×2048 3.52 / 5 See scores
7
FLUX.2 Black Forest Labs
$0.012 2.0s 1024×768 3.50 / 5 See scores
8
Seedream 5.0 Pro ByteDance
$0.135 65.3s 2048×2048 3.49 / 5 See scores
9
FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo Black Forest Labs
$0.008 2.0s 1024×768 3.47 / 5 See scores
10
Nano Banana 2 Google
$0.080 13.2s 1408×768 3.34 / 5 See scores
11
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image Google
$0.040 7.4s 1024×1024 3.27 / 5 See scores
12
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst OpenAI
$0.036 30.4s 1024×768 3.27 / 5 See scores
13
GPT Image 2.5 Flare OpenAI
$0.042 21.3s 1024×768 3.26 / 5 See scores
14
Grok Imagine Image 2.0 xAI
$0.060 65.9s 1024×1024 3.22 / 5 See scores
15
FLUX.2 [pro] Black Forest Labs
$0.030 11.5s 1024×768 3.18 / 5 See scores
16
Qwen-Image Alibaba
$0.020 6.9s 1024×768 3.18 / 5 See scores
17
Nano Banana Pro Google
$0.150 23.3s 1024×1024 3.13 / 5 See scores
18
Luma Photon Luma AI
$0.021 16.1s 1536×1536 3.10 / 5 See scores
19
Ideogram 3.0 Ideogram
$0.060 17.9s 1024×1024 3.08 / 5 See scores
20
Recraft V3 Recraft
$0.040 7.4s 1024×1024 3.08 / 5 See scores
21
Qwen Image 3.0 Alibaba
$0.040 141.1s 1024×1024 3.06 / 5 See scores
22
GPT Image 2 OpenAI
$0.155 110.1s 1024×768 3.04 / 5 See scores
23
Stable Diffusion 1.5 Stability AI
$0.002 2.1s 512×512 2.30 / 5 See scores

Want a head-to-head? Pick two or three models and compare every score and every prompt side by side.

Open the comparison tool

Cost vs quality

The buyer's chart: models on the Pareto frontier are undominated; for every faded dot there is a model that is both cheaper and better on the measured criteria.

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 $0.002 $0.005 $0.01 $0.02 $0.05 $0.10 $0.20 Cost per image (log scale) Overall score (all eight criteria) GPT Image 1.5 Recraft V4.1 Muse Image Nano Banana 2 Lite Seedream 4.5 FLUX.2 Seedream 5.0 Pro Seedream 5.0 Lite FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo Nano Banana 2 Gemini 2.5 Flash Image GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst GPT Image 2.5 Flare Qwen-Image Grok Imagine Image 2.0 FLUX.2 [pro] Nano Banana Pro Luma Photon Recraft V3 Ideogram 3.0 GPT Image 2 Qwen Image 3.0 Stable Diffusion 1.5

How this score is calculated
Score axis is zoomed to 2–4, the band every model falls in. Models on the highlighted Pareto frontier (Stable Diffusion 1.5, FLUX.2 [dev] Turbo, Muse Image, Recraft V4.1, GPT Image 1.5) are undominated: no other model is both cheaper and better on these criteria. Faded dots are dominated. Hover or tap a point for its exact cost and score and a link to the full scorecard; the table above carries the same data.