Ideogram V3 vs GLM Image

This prompt tests multiple text elements: a product name, a batch designation with numbers, and a percentage figure. Beer labels require text that's both readable and stylistically appropriate to the vintage illustration aesthetic.

Ideogram's specialized text engine typically handles this type of prompt with high accuracy—the brewery name, batch number, and ABV percentage tend to render legibly and with appropriate typography. GLM Image produces attractive results but may show variations in text accuracy, particularly with numbers and the percentage symbol. For product design mockups where text must be correct, Ideogram's reliability reduces iteration cycles.

Portraits reveal a model's ability to render convincing human features—skin texture, natural expressions, eye detail, and lighting interactions. Laboratory settings add complexity with technical equipment and specific lighting conditions.

Both models produce competent portraits, though with different characteristics. Ideogram tends toward slightly cleaner, commercial-ready results. GLM Image, drawing on its vision- language foundation, sometimes captures more naturalistic details but with occasional inconsistencies. Neither is a photorealism specialist—models like Juggernaut Flux Pro or Seedream V4.5 outperform both for portrait work.

Environmental signage tests both text accuracy and contextual integration—the text must be readable while fitting naturally into the scene's aesthetic and era. Multiple text elements at different sizes add complexity.

Ideogram excels at this category, rendering the store name, establishment date, and tagline with period-appropriate typography. The text feels like it belongs on an authentic frontier store. GLM Image creates atmospheric environments but may show less consistency in the text elements—some may be clear while others are stylized to the point of illegibility. For historical scenes requiring readable signage, Ideogram is more reliable.

Product packaging requires text that's both accurate and aesthetically appropriate—brand names must be legible while conveying premium quality. Tea packaging adds the challenge of potentially including non-Latin characters or transliterated text.

Ideogram handles luxury packaging well, with text that maintains elegance while remaining readable. The typography typically matches the premium aesthetic. GLM Image produces appealing product shots with good material rendering (the tea leaves, slate surface, and packaging textures), but text elements may be less consistent. For e-commerce or marketing where product text matters, Ideogram reduces the need for post-processing or regeneration.

While this comparison uses text-to-image generation (the only mode both models share), GLM Image's image input capability opens workflows unavailable with Ideogram. You could provide a reference poster, a landscape photo, or a sketch as compositional guidance.

For pure text-to-image poster design, Ideogram's typography advantage is visible—text elements render more consistently with vintage poster aesthetics. However, if your workflow involves iterating on existing designs, creating variations of previous outputs, or using reference images, GLM Image's multimodal capabilities provide flexibility that Ideogram cannot match. The choice depends on whether text accuracy or workflow versatility matters more for your project.