Why side-by-side comparison changes everything
The hidden cost of choosing the wrong AI model is not the per-image price. It is the iteration time — the rounds of prompting, adjusting, and re-generating that happen when you are working in a model that is not well-suited to your task. A creator who picks Midjourney for product photography and spends 30 minutes iterating would have had a usable output in the first generation with FLUX. That time cost compounds across a team.
Side-by-side comparison with the same prompt eliminates the guesswork. You see immediately whether FLUX or Imagen 4 handles your product's material texture better. You see whether DALL-E 3 or Ideogram renders your text overlay more legibly. You see whether Kling or Veo 3 produces the motion quality your video ad needs. The comparison tool makes model selection empirical instead of habitual.
Models available in the comparison tool
The eaxy comparison tool covers 10 major image and video generation models:
Image models
- FLUX 1.1 Pro
- Midjourney v7
- Imagen 4 Ultra
- Seedream 3
- Ideogram v3
- Stable Diffusion 3.5
Video models
- Kling 3.0
- Veo 3
- Runway Gen-4.5
- Seedance
- Hailuo
Compare by
- Prompt adherence
- Realism score
- Generation speed
- Cost efficiency
- Style fidelity
How to use the comparison tool
- Step 1: Enter your prompt — or choose from a curated test prompt library organized by use case (product, portrait, architecture, food, video ad).
- Step 2: Select 2–4 models to compare. No account required to view pre-generated comparison sets; an account is required to run your own prompts.
- Step 3: Choose output type: image or video. For video comparisons, select clip duration (5s or 10s).
- Step 4: View side-by-side results with quality scores for prompt adherence, realism, speed, and cost efficiency.
- Step 5: Generate with the winning model through eaxy's smart routing — your preference is saved per use case for future generations.
Pre-built comparison sets (curated by use case)
These comparison sets use standardized prompts run fresh each month to reflect current model capabilities. Outputs are publicly viewable without an account.
| Comparison set | Models compared | June 2026 winner |
|---|---|---|
| Product photography (sneaker on marble) | FLUX vs Seedream vs Imagen 4 | FLUX 1.1 Pro |
| Portrait photography (natural light) | Midjourney vs FLUX vs Seedream | Midjourney v7 |
| Anime / illustration | Midjourney vs Ideogram vs SDXL | Midjourney v7 |
| Short video ad (lifestyle) | Kling 3.0 vs Veo 3 vs Runway | Kling 3.0 (cost/quality) |
| Architecture render | FLUX vs Imagen 4 vs Midjourney | FLUX 1.1 Pro |
| Food photography | Imagen 4 Ultra vs FLUX vs Seedream | Imagen 4 Ultra |
| Text-in-image accuracy | DALL-E 3 vs Ideogram vs Imagen 4 | Ideogram v3 |
Quality scoring methodology
Each comparison generates four scores per model, on a 1–10 scale:
- Prompt adherence: How accurately the output matches the written prompt. Scored by counting the number of specified attributes (objects, materials, lighting, composition, style) that appear correctly in the output.
- Photorealism / style fidelity: For realistic prompts, scored on how convincingly the output could be a real photograph. For stylized prompts, scored on how consistently it achieves the intended aesthetic.
- Latency score: Generation speed relative to other models in the comparison set. Faster models receive higher latency scores (inverted scale: lower seconds = higher score).
- Cost efficiency: Quality score divided by per-image cost. Higher score = better quality per dollar. This is the key metric that drives eaxy's smart routing algorithm.
ELO leaderboard: model rankings by category (June 2026)
| Category | #1 | #2 | #3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall image quality | FLUX 1.1 Pro | Imagen 4 Ultra | Midjourney v7 |
| Portraits | Midjourney v7 | FLUX 1.1 Pro | Seedream 3 |
| Product shots | FLUX 1.1 Pro | Imagen 4 Ultra | Seedream 3 |
| Text in image | Ideogram v3 | DALL-E 3 | Imagen 4 |
| Video — motion quality | Veo 3 | Runway Gen-4.5 | Kling 3.0 |
| Video — cost efficiency | Kling 3.0 | Hailuo | Seedance |
Rankings are updated monthly. The ELO score is calculated from pairwise comparisons run across a standardized prompt set of 200 prompts per category. Each model's score reflects its win rate, weighted for prompt difficulty.
API access: run your own comparisons programmatically
The comparison API accepts a prompt, a list of model IDs, and optional quality parameters. It returns outputs from all selected models with quality scores attached. This is useful for QA pipelines in production systems — run a nightly comparison against your core use case prompt to detect model quality regressions before they affect your users.
SDKs are available for Python and Node.js. The REST endpoint is also callable directly from any language with HTTP support. Webhook callbacks enable async workflows: submit a comparison job, receive results via webhook when all models have finished generating.
From comparison to production: smart routing CTA
The comparison tool tells you which model wins for your specific use case. Smart routing applies that decision at scale — so every generation in production automatically uses the model that performed best for your task type. You do not need to manually specify the model for each generation; eaxy's routing layer applies your comparison results as a routing preference going forward.
Generate your first AI model comparison free — 10 free credits, no credit card required. See which model produces the output you actually need before committing to a workflow.