Gemini 2.5 Flash Image vs Ideogram V3

Movie posters demand accurate text rendering across multiple elements: the title, tagline, and potentially credits. This prompt includes both a multi-word title and a complete sentence tagline—a challenging combination for any image generation model.

In our testing, Ideogram V3 consistently rendered both text elements correctly with appropriate styling. The title appeared in the requested serif font, and the tagline maintained proper spelling and punctuation. Gemini often captured the visual mood effectively but showed more variability in text accuracy—sometimes producing near-correct but not quite right spellings, or text that was decoratively styled to the point of illegibility.

This prompt describes an emotional concept—"the weight of unspoken words"—that must be translated into visual storytelling through composition, body language, and lighting. It's not just describing physical objects but asking for a feeling to be rendered visually.

Gemini's multimodal architecture tended to produce more emotionally resonant interpretations in our testing. The figures' postures conveyed disconnection, the lighting emphasized isolation, and the empty chairs felt narratively meaningful rather than just compositionally present. Ideogram produced technically competent images of the described scene but sometimes missed the emotional subtext—the "unspoken words" quality that makes the image compelling beyond its literal elements.

Product packaging requires multiple text elements rendered accurately: the brand name, product name, and specifications. The text must also integrate aesthetically with the overall design rather than appearing pasted on. This is Ideogram's territory.

Ideogram excelled here, producing packaging where all text elements were correctly spelled and stylistically cohesive with the Chinese-inspired aesthetic. The gold foil effect integrated naturally with the typography. Gemini produced attractive packaging designs but more frequently showed text issues—sometimes the brand name was slightly wrong, or the weight specification was garbled. For commercial applications where text accuracy directly impacts usability, Ideogram's reliability matters.

Both models can produce stylized imagery through careful prompting, but they approach it differently. Gemini relies on understanding the style through prompt description, while Ideogram offers style presets (auto, general, realistic, design) that provide more consistent stylistic control.

For retro illustration styles like this, both models produced compelling results. Ideogram's "design" preset can help maintain illustrative consistency, while Gemini's interpretation sometimes felt more naturalistic than the requested pulp aesthetic. Neither model has a clear advantage for general stylization—the choice depends more on other factors like text needs and workflow requirements.

While both models produce strong text-to-image results, only Gemini 2.5 Flash Image supports image inputs. This enables workflows that Ideogram simply cannot address: using reference images to guide style or composition, editing existing images with text instructions, or creating variations based on uploaded visuals.

For workflows involving iteration on existing images, maintaining visual consistency with brand guidelines provided as reference, or any form of image editing, Gemini's image input capability is essential. Ideogram's strength lies in pure text-to-image generation where this limitation doesn't impact the workflow—and where its text rendering advantage can shine.