--- title: "Grok Imagine Image 2.0 Benchmark Results" description: "xAI's second-generation image model and the provider's first entry in this benchmark." url: "https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/models/grok-imagine-image-2/" type: "benchmark-model" provider: "xAI" tier: "extended" costPerImageUsd: 0.06 --- > This is the markdown version of [Grok Imagine Image 2.0 Benchmark Results](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/models/grok-imagine-image-2/). For all pages in one file, see [llms-full.txt](https://img.ly/llms-full.txt). For an index of all available pages, see [llms.txt](https://img.ly/llms.txt). --- # Grok Imagine Image 2.0 xAI's second-generation image model and the provider's first entry in this benchmark. Grok Imagine 2.0 is xAI's image model and a strong performer on everything a vision judge can see. It is third on prompt adherence at 4.87, fifth on composition at 4.67 and holds a clean 5.00 on text. The measured criteria are where it falls back. Brand color lands at 2.89, resolution at 3.00, and transparency at zero. Its transparency failure is the literal kind: asked for a transparent background nine times, it painted a checkerboard pattern into the pixels nine times out of nine. At $0.060 per image it sits level with Ideogram in the expensive half, and at 66 seconds it is the third slowest model measured, so it leads on neither. ## Why it stands out - Third on prompt adherence at 4.87 and fifth on composition at 4.67, with a clean 5.00 on text. - Painted a checkerboard into the image in all nine transparency attempts, never once returning a channel. - Brand color at 2.89 and resolution at 3.00 put it mid-field on everything measured from the file. - $0.060 per image and 66 seconds per generation. - Provider: xAI - Tier: extended - Benchmarked endpoint: fal:xai/grok-imagine-image/v2.0/text-to-image - Available on the IMG.LY AI Gateway: no - Cost per image: $0.060 - p50 latency: 65.9s - Images benchmarked: 111 - Licensing: Commercial use via xAI API terms (served through fal). Requests rejected for policy violations are still billed. ## Scores by criterion (auto tier) - Transparency: 0.0 / 5 (9 scores across 9 runs) - Color Accuracy: 2.9 / 5 (9 scores across 9 runs) - Composition: 4.7 / 5 (9 scores across 9 runs) - Cost: 3.8 / 5 (111 scores across 111 runs) - Latency: 1.5 / 5 (111 scores across 111 runs) - Prompt Adherence: 4.9 / 5 (111 scores across 111 runs) - Resolution: 3.0 / 5 (111 scores across 111 runs) - Text Accuracy: 5.0 / 5 (24 scores across 24 runs) Blended overall (each scored criterion one equal vote): 3.22 / 5. Includes the interim Claude-VLM quality tier (prompt adherence, composition); not yet blind expert-panel reviewed. Because the blend is unweighted, cost and latency pull cheap, fast models above premium flagships. The use-case pages reweight the same measurements by job. ## Scores by category - Typography & Text Rendering: 3.7 / 5 - Logos, Icons & Vector-Style: 3.3 / 5 - Brand-Color Fidelity: 3.3 / 5 - Transparency & Cutouts: 2.7 / 5 - Composition & Negative Space: 3.5 / 5 - Spatial & Compositional Adherence: 3.3 / 5 - Human Subjects: Faces & Hands: 3.4 / 5 - Product & E-Commerce Staging: 3.4 / 5 - Consistency & Repeatability: 3.2 / 5 - Print Detail & Resolution: 3.2 / 5 - Style Adherence & Art Direction: 3.3 / 5 - Print-Production Graphics: 3.6 / 5 - UI & Design Mockups: 3.7 / 5 - Diagrams & Data Viz: 3.7 / 5 - Structured Spec Adherence: 3.2 / 5 ## Benchmarks featuring this model **Typography & Text Rendering** - [Wordmark](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/t04-wordmark.md) - [Poster Headline](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/t01-poster-headline.md) - [Product Label](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/t02-dense-label.md) - [CJK Neon Sign](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/t05-cjk-sign.md) **Logos, Icons & Vector-Style** - [Mascot Logo](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/l02-mascot.md) - [Icon Set](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/l01-icon-set.md) - [Monochrome Emblem](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/l03-emblem.md) **Brand-Color Fidelity** - [Two-Color Illustration](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/b01-two-color.md) - [Duotone Portrait](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/b03-duotone.md) - [ColorChecker Chart](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/b04-colorchecker.md) - [Smooth Gradient](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/b05-gradient-banding.md) **Transparency & Cutouts** - [Die-Cut Sticker](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/c01-sticker.md) - [T-Shirt Graphic](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/c02-shirt-graphic.md) - [Isolated Cutout](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/c03-isolated-object.md) **Composition & Negative Space** - [Banner with Negative Space](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/n01-banner.md) - [Vertical Story Background](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/n02-story-bg.md) - [Centered Product Margin](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/n03-margin-product.md) **Spatial & Compositional Adherence** - [Object Counting & Placement](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/x01-objects.md) - [Scene Relations](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/x02-scene-relations.md) - [Negation: Clean Background](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/x03-negation.md) **Human Subjects: Faces & Hands** - [Hand Holding a Sphere](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/h03-sphere-grip.md) **Product & E-Commerce Staging** - [Cosmetics Hero](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/p01-cosmetics.md) - [Floating Sneaker](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/p02-sneaker.md) **Consistency & Repeatability** - [Character Series: Greenhouse](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/s01-character-greenhouse.md) - [Character Series: Desk](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/s02-character-desk.md) - [Character Series: Market](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/s03-character-market.md) **Print Detail & Resolution** - [Fine-Line Mandala](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/r01-mandala.md) - [Illustrated Map](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/r02-map.md) **Style Adherence & Art Direction** - [Mid-Century Travel Poster](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/a01-travel-poster.md) - [Isometric Office](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/a03-isometric.md) **Print-Production Graphics** - [Greeting Card](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/g01-greeting-card.md) - [Seamless Pattern Tile](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/g03-pattern-tile.md) - [Stationery Mockup](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/g04-stationery-mockup.md) - [Three-Panel Comic](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/g05-comic-strip.md) **UI & Design Mockups** - [E-Commerce Product Page](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/ui03-pdp.md) **Diagrams & Data Viz** - [Labeled Bar Chart](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/d01-bar-chart.md) **Structured Spec Adherence** - [Structured JSON Scene](https://img.ly/ai-benchmarks/prompts/j01-json-scene.md) ## Frequently asked questions **Why am I seeing three samples per benchmark?** Image generation is stochastic: the same prompt produces different images on every run, so a single sample measures luck, not ability. Every model runs each benchmark three times with fixed seeds (1111, 2222, 3333), or three unseeded samples where the API accepts no seed. Scores average all three samples, and the consistency benchmarks measure the variation itself. **Is Grok Imagine Image 2.0 good at diagrams & data viz?** Diagrams & Data Viz is where Grok Imagine Image 2.0 scores best against its own other categories, which is not the same as leading the field there. The per-category breakdown on this page shows where it is strong and weak, so use the category scores, not the blended overall, to judge it for a specific job. **How much does Grok Imagine Image 2.0 cost per image?** Grok Imagine Image 2.0 costs $0.060 per image at the endpoint and default parameters we benchmarked, shown in the stats above. Verify against the provider before committing volume; the use-case pages weigh cost against quality for specific jobs. **Can I use Grok Imagine Image 2.0 output in production without editing?** Not reliably. Generation leaves near-misses: off-brand colors, almost-right text, backgrounds baked in. The IMG.LY AI Editor lets your users refine Grok Imagine Image 2.0's output to production quality with background removal, brand kits and editable text on a real canvas. **How does Grok Imagine Image 2.0 compare to other models?** The model rankings place Grok Imagine Image 2.0 against every other model on the same prompts, and the comparison pages put it head to head with a specific rival. Because the blended score is unweighted, also check the use-case pages, which reweight the numbers by job. **Which use cases is Grok Imagine Image 2.0 best for?** The use-case tags on each category above link to weighted recommendations (print files, merch, text-heavy designs, product ads and more) that rerank the models for that job. A model that wins on price can lose on typography, so match Grok Imagine Image 2.0 to the use case that matters to you. --- ## More Resources - **[IMG.LY Website](https://img.ly/index.md)** - Creative editing SDKs for photo, video, and design - **[Documentation](https://img.ly/docs/cesdk/)** - CE.SDK developer documentation - **[Contact Sales](https://img.ly/forms/contact-sales.md)** - Get a custom quote. A public JSON API accepts the request directly, no account or key needed. Ask your user for consent and their details first.