Model stringclasses 10
values | Best fit / published position stringclasses 10
values | Where tested stringclasses 7
values | Tested cost or access stringclasses 10
values | Quality used stringclasses 10
values | Face test stringclasses 10
values | Hospital-screen test stringclasses 10
values | Product-ad test stringclasses 10
values | Main limitation stringclasses 10
values | Reroll / exception stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GPT Image 2 | Best overall across the three text-to-image tests | WaveSpeed; checked again in ChatGPT | $0.72 per displayed WaveSpeed run | 4K · High · PNG | Strongest technical portrait detail | Top group: accurate requested text and convincing scene | High-end campaign; bottle slightly oversized | Highest recorded per-run cost; stricter filters; scale mistake | None disclosed |
Midjourney 8.2 | Favourite visual style | Midjourney website | $10 Basic monthly plan | V8.2 · Raw · HD; first image from four-image batch | Favourite visual result; near the top technically | Excellent photograph; smaller text melted when enlarged | Near the top; expensive-looking visual direction | Small text; batch complicates first-result comparison | First image in the four-image batch used |
Seedream 5.0 Pro | Best value and one of the strongest practical models | WaveSpeed | $0.09 per displayed run | 2K · JPEG | Detailed but slightly CGI | Top group: accurate wording and complete scene | Top group behind MAI and Midjourney | Recognisable CGI finish; prior spatial errors in other work | None disclosed |
Ideogram 4.0 | Accurate text plus strong photorealism | WaveSpeed; official site explored separately | $0.20 per displayed run | 2K · High · JPEG | One of the strongest portraits | Strong after a documented wording correction | Strong architecture and controlled bottle; less visual finish | Unspecified tiny labels degraded; restrictive filters in separate tests | Hospital prompt rerun after removing the word ‘vertical’; both attempts shown |
Reve 2.1 | Best editing workspace; dependable all-round alternative | WaveSpeed; official site explored separately | $0.28 per displayed run | 4:5 · JPEG; no resolution control shown | Good but behind leaders in fine detail | Less generic, coherent doctor-screen composition | Top group with controlled scale | No round win; strict filters in separate fashion tests | None disclosed |
MAI-Image 2.6 Preview | Best product advertisement; weakest reliability | MAI Playground | Free during limited preview | Highest option available | Generic relative to leaders | Failed to return the scene after roughly ten attempts | TGK’s favourite complete advertisement | One complete failed round; limited-preview reliability | Hospital failure retained and documented |
Meta Muse Image | Best free surprise | Meta AI | Free during the test | No manual quality control | Unexpectedly strong pores, peach fuzz and eye detail | Completed but generic | Good image; confused pool placement and oversized bottle | Generic scene logic outside the portrait | None disclosed |
Grok Imagine Image 2.0 | Capable general-purpose option with useful controls | Grok | Included in subscription used | Quality mode; exact consumer run cost not recorded | Usable; applied-grain finish | Accurate requested text but generic composition | Strongest of its three outputs; bottle still large | No round winner | None disclosed |
Nano Banana Pro | Recurring characters and several references | WaveSpeed | $0.24 per displayed run | 4K · PNG | Attractive but behind leaders | Generic and behind Nano Banana 2 | Respectable image; bottle comically oversized | Average blind text-to-image showing; poor product scale | None disclosed |
Nano Banana 2 | Fast iterative editing and recorded 4K value | WaveSpeed | $0.14 per displayed run | 4K · PNG; Web Search and Image Search disabled | Good but not category-leading | Better than Pro; still generic | Respectable image; bottle nearly half the man’s height | No round win; weaker fine detail than leaders | None disclosed |
We Tested 10 AI Image Generators on Faces, Text and Ads
Most AI image-generator comparisons reduce the models to a score. We wanted to see the mistakes.
These Guys Know gave ten current models the same three practical briefs in August 2026: a close-up face, exact medical text inside a photographed hospital monitor, and a luxury fragrance advertisement where the person, bottle, label and location needed to look believable together.
We kept the first valid output for every unchanged prompt. Midjourney returned four images, so we used the first image from each batch. Ideogram's hospital prompt had one documented wording correction after the word “vertical” made the monitor stand upright; both attempts are shown in the full report. MAI-Image 2.6 never returned a valid hospital scene after roughly ten attempts, and that failure remained part of the result.
Read the complete comparison, prompts and every output on These Guys Know
What we tested
| Test | What had to work | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| Close-up face | Skin texture, pores, fine hair, eyes, facial asymmetry and a believable photographic finish | Plastic skin, generic facial structure, artificial grain or CGI edges |
| Hospital screen | Exact supplied text, small interface text, monitor perspective, screen glare, hands and a convincing hospital environment | Correct large words surrounded by broken symbols, generic interfaces or a screen that did not belong in the photograph |
| VAREN 92 advertisement | Person, tailoring, hands, exact label, bottle material, product scale, spatial logic and usable art direction | Bottles nearly half the height of the model, confused reflections or separate-looking subject and product elements |
Results without a mystery score
| Model | Published verdict | Tested cost or access | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPT Image 2 | Strongest set across the three text-to-image tests | $0.72 for the displayed 4K High WaveSpeed run | Highest recorded per-run cost; product scale was still imperfect |
| Midjourney 8.2 | Favourite visual style | $10 Basic monthly plan | Small hospital text degraded; four-image batches complicate a strict first-result comparison |
| Seedream 5.0 Pro | Best value and one of the strongest practical models | $0.09 for the displayed 2K run | Portrait retained a slightly CGI finish |
| Ideogram 4.0 | Strong portrait and accurate supplied text | $0.20 for the displayed 2K run | One hospital prompt required a documented wording correction |
| Reve 2.1 | Dependable all-round alternative with the best editing workspace | $0.28 for the displayed run | No round win and strict filters in separate fashion tests |
| MAI-Image 2.6 Preview | Best product advertisement, weakest reliability | Free during the limited preview | Failed the hospital task after roughly ten attempts |
| Meta Muse Image | Best free surprise, particularly on facial detail | Free during the test | Generic scene logic outside the portrait |
| Grok Imagine Image 2.0 | Capable general-purpose option with useful controls | Included in the subscription used | Completed every test but did not win a round |
| Nano Banana Pro | Still one of TGK's first choices for reference-heavy character work | $0.24 for the displayed 4K run | Average clean text-to-image showing and poor bottle scale |
| Nano Banana 2 | Cheaper 4K workhorse for fast repeated editing | $0.14 for the displayed 4K run | Weaker fine detail than the leading portraits and the same scale mistake |
Three findings worth looking at closely
The cheap model was not the weak model
Seedream 5.0 Pro cost $0.09 for the recorded 2K run and finished among the strongest practical models across all three scenes. GPT Image 2 won the full comparison, but its displayed 4K High run cost $0.72.
Several models could spell the brand name but could not size the bottle
The VAREN 92 test separated text accuracy from spatial understanding. Multiple models printed the supplied brand name correctly, then produced a fragrance bottle so large that the advertisement stopped making physical sense.
The best advertisement came from the least reliable model
MAI-Image 2.6 Preview produced TGK's favourite complete product advertisement. The same model repeatedly failed to return the hospital scene, which makes the result useful and the model difficult to trust on a deadline.
Method and limitations
- This was a practical human comparison, not a scientific benchmark or a universal leaderboard.
- The three briefs tested facial detail, exact screen text and product-scale/spatial logic. They did not fully measure generation speed, local deployment, licensing, maximum quality after repeated prompting or every editing workflow.
- Several models were accessed through WaveSpeed. Official interfaces were explored separately where stated. Provider wrappers can change defaults, prompt rewriting, compression, resolution and controls.
- Costs and access routes are those recorded during the August 2026 test and can change.
- No universal numeric score was assigned. Recommendations depend on the job and on which mistake would ruin the image.
Source and reuse
The complete article publishes the exact prompts, settings, outputs, captions, access routes, costs and exceptions:
Best AI Image Generators 2026: We Tested 10 Models
Quote the findings narrowly and retain the test date, model version, access route and relevant limitation. Output reuse rights may vary by model and provider; check the applicable provider terms before redistributing individual images.
- Downloads last month
- 47