Flux 2 Dev vs Recraft V3

Text rendering is where these models diverge most significantly. This prompt requires rendering a business name and establishment date in a stylized, hand-painted aesthetic—challenging for any model, but particularly revealing of their different approaches to typography.

In our testing, Recraft consistently produced readable, properly-formed text that maintained the hand-painted aesthetic requested in the prompt. Flux 2 Dev often captured the visual style well but the actual letterforms were frequently incorrect—letters duplicated, omitted, or malformed in ways that become apparent on close inspection. For signage, menus, packaging, or any design where text must be legible, this difference is decisive.

Portrait photography tests a model's ability to render convincing human subjects with natural skin textures, proper lighting, and authentic environmental context. This prompt adds complexity with the atmospheric elements—floating sawdust, window light—that require sophisticated understanding of light behavior.

Both models perform well with portraiture, though their approaches differ. Flux 2 Dev tends toward naturalistic rendering with subtle color variations and realistic imperfections. Recraft, especially with the "realistic_image/natural_light" preset, often produces slightly more polished results with careful attention to lighting transitions. For portraits without text, the quality gap is modest enough that Flux 2 Dev's cost advantage becomes significant.

This prompt requests a specific artistic style—pixel art—that requires understanding of the constraints and aesthetics of retro gaming graphics. It tests whether each model can execute a distinctive visual language beyond photorealism.

Recraft's style preset system provides a clear advantage here. The "digital_illustration/pixel_art" preset produces outputs that respect pixel art conventions: clean edges, limited color palettes, and authentic sprite aesthetics. Flux 2 Dev interprets the prompt more freely, sometimes producing results that reference pixel art style but don't strictly adhere to its visual rules. Neither approach is inherently better—Recraft offers more predictable control, while Flux 2 Dev offers more creative interpretation.

Business cards require everything that challenges image generators: precise text at multiple sizes, careful spatial relationships, and the clean execution expected in professional design. This prompt tests whether outputs could plausibly be used as design mockups or starting points.

Recraft's design-focused training becomes apparent with outputs like this. Text tends to be properly aligned, sized consistently, and readable. Flux 2 Dev can produce attractive business card compositions, but the text elements frequently contain errors that would make the output unusable as an actual design asset. For design professionals using AI as a workflow tool, this reliability difference significantly affects efficiency.

For subjects without text—like this food photography prompt—both models produce excellent results. The quality difference exists but is less pronounced than in typography-heavy scenarios. At this complexity level, you're paying 3.3x more for refinements that may or may not matter for your specific use case.

The economics are straightforward: Recraft costs roughly 3× more per image than Flux 2 Dev, meaning you can generate approximately three images with Flux 2 Dev for the cost of one Recraft image. For exploration, iteration, or any workflow where image input is valuable, that volume advantage is significant. Reserve Recraft for scenarios where its unique strengths matter—typography, brand assets, or situations demanding specific stylistic control through presets.