GPT Image 2 vs Seedream 5 Pro for prompt-faithful image generation
This comparison splits by task. GPT Image 2 is the better pick in this run for material and lighting control, anatomy constraints, object-binding edits, outpainting, and product-preserving scene changes, while Seedream 5 Pro is stronger for multilingual typography, advertising layout, and coherent relighting. Several structured or edit-heavy prompts are ties, so the safer choice depends on which failure mode matters most for your image job.
Side-by-side facts
| Feature | GPT Image 2 | Seedream 5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | OpenAI | ByteDance |
| Availability on Banana Pie | Available now | Available now |
| Credits from | 20 credits | 25 credits |
| Max resolution | 4K | 2K |
| Reference images | Up to 8 | Up to 8 |
Scenario by scenario
Both models ran the identical prompt under our fixed suite - the images are the published runs, shown exactly as generated.
Product material and lighting
Better here: GPT Image 2LEFT better satisfies the material, refraction, and lighting requirements while still meeting the object constraints. RIGHT is closer on the half-fill level, but LEFT has the stronger overall match to the prompt.
- Exactly one transparent rectangular perfume bottle is visible, with no text, logo, or extra objects: tie. Both images show a single transparent rectangular perfume bottle on wet black stone, with no visible text, logo, plants, or separate extra objects.
- The bottle is visibly filled halfway with amber liquid: right does better. The right bottle's amber liquid sits close to the halfway point of the bottle body, while the left bottle appears filled slightly above halfway in the visible front chamber.
- The glass refraction and the reflection on the wet black stone are physically coherent: left does better. The left image has cleaner glass edges, more consistent refraction through the rectangular walls, and a reflection that aligns with the bottle and amber liquid; the right image has a less convincing curved internal tube/refraction line through the liquid.
- Upper-left lighting produces consistent highlights and a plausible contact shadow: left does better. The left image clearly has strong illumination from the upper left, matching the bright highlights and shadow falling to the right; the right image has plausible highlights but the direction is less clearly upper-left and the contact shadow is less distinct.
Prompt & settings used
Prompt
A premium product photograph of exactly one transparent rectangular perfume bottle, half filled with amber liquid, standing upright on wet black stone. Light comes from the upper left, creating coherent refraction, a contact shadow, and one subtle reflection. No text, logo, plants, or extra objects.
Multilingual typography
Better here: Seedream 5 ProRight follows the prompt more closely because it preserves the required four-line structure and exact text, while Left incorrectly splits the first line into two separate lines.
- The poster contains exactly four centered text lines and no additional text: Right does better. Right shows exactly four centered lines: "MOONLIGHT MARKET", "月光市集", "18 OCT", and "RIVER HALL". Left shows five centered lines because "MOONLIGHT MARKET" is split into "MOONLIGHT" and "MARKET".
- The four lines read exactly "MOONLIGHT MARKET", "月光市集", "18 OCT", and "RIVER HALL" in that order: Right does better. Right renders the four lines exactly as "MOONLIGHT MARKET", "月光市集", "18 OCT", and "RIVER HALL". Left renders the text as "MOONLIGHT", "MARKET", "月光市集", "18 OCT", and "RIVER HALL", so the first line is not exact and the line count/order format is wrong.
- "月光市集" is red and the other three lines are black: Tie. Both images render "月光市集" in red, and the English/date lines are black.
- All text is legible, evenly spaced, and visually aligned: Right does better. Right's text is legible, centered, and evenly spaced as a compact poster layout. Left is legible and centered, but the split title creates less even visual spacing and breaks the intended four-line alignment.
Prompt & settings used
Prompt
Design a clean cream-colored vertical event poster. Show exactly four centered text lines and no other text: "MOONLIGHT MARKET", "月光市集", "18 OCT", and "RIVER HALL". Render "月光市集" in red and all other lines in black.
Human anatomy and contact
Better here: GPT Image 2Left better satisfies the hand-count and five-finger requirements, despite Right having somewhat cleaner-looking finger anatomy.
- Exactly two fully visible hands are present, with no extra hands or people: Left does better. Left shows exactly two hands and one person, with both hands more fully visible over the bowl. Right also shows exactly two hands and no extra people, but the hand inside the bowl has its thumb hidden, so it is less fully visible.
- Each hand has exactly five distinct, naturally formed fingers: Left does better. Left appears to show five digits on each hand, though some are clay-covered and partly close together. Right’s hand inside the bowl only clearly shows four fingers, with no distinct thumb visible; the outer hand appears to have five digits.
- The fingers, joints, and contact with the clay are anatomically plausible: Right does better. Right’s visible fingers and knuckles look more naturally proportioned and the grip on the bowl is plausible. Left’s clay-covered fingers make the anatomy harder to read, and some fingertips on the left-side hand look slightly crowded or fused near the clay contact.
- The clay bowl, spinning wheel, and shaping action are clearly recognizable: Tie. Both images clearly show a clay bowl on a spinning wheel with hands shaping or steadying the clay; Left emphasizes the spinning wheel blur and interior contact, while Right shows the bowl form and wheel clearly.
Prompt & settings used
Prompt
A photorealistic close-up of an adult potter shaping a clay bowl on a spinning wheel. Both hands are fully visible, each with five natural fingers touching the clay. No other people or hands. Soft window light.
Counting and attribute binding
Depends on the taskBoth images satisfy the requested counts, positions, colors, shapes, materials, right-facing mug handle, and absence of extra text or objects. The differences are minor and do not create a clear rubric-level winner.
- Exactly three red cubes appear on the left, two blue spheres on the right, and one yellow mug centered behind them: tie; both images show three red cubes on the left, two blue spheres on the right, and a single yellow mug behind the objects near the center.
- The specified colors, shapes, and materials are correctly bound to each object: tie; both show red cube shapes, blue glass-like spheres, and a yellow glossy ceramic-looking mug. The wood texture on the cubes is a bit clearer on the right, while both still satisfy the binding.
- The mug handle clearly points to the right: tie; in both images the mug handle is visible on the right side of the mug.
- No additional objects or text are visible: tie; neither image shows extra objects or any rendered text.
Prompt & settings used
Prompt
On a matte gray table, exactly three red wooden cubes form a row on the left, exactly two blue glass spheres sit on the right, and one yellow ceramic mug stands centered behind them. The mug handle points right. No other objects or text.
Advertising composition
Better here: Seedream 5 ProRight follows the text and layout constraints better overall, despite left placing the shoe more clearly in the lower-right.
- Exactly one silver shoe appears in the lower-right and an orange trail begins from the bottom-left: left does better. Left has one silver shoe clearly anchored in the lower-right and the orange trail visibly starts at the bottom-left; right has one silver shoe and a bottom-left orange trail, but the shoe sits more mid-right/lower-half than firmly lower-right.
- The only visible text is "RUN LIGHT" and "42 KM", both spelled correctly: right does better. Right shows only "RUN LIGHT" and "42 KM". Left shows "RUN LIGHT" and "42 KM" correctly, but also has extra visible shoe text "AERO".
- The top 15 percent remains visibly uncluttered, with the headline positioned directly below it: right does better. Right keeps the top area empty and places "RUN LIGHT" just below it in the upper-left. Left also has an uncluttered top area, but the headline is much lower, not directly below the empty top band.
- All required elements are fully visible and form a clear visual hierarchy: right does better. Right keeps the shoe, orange trail, headline, and badge fully visible with a clean ad layout; left has a strong hierarchy, but the extra "AERO" text on the shoe conflicts with the requested limited text and adds visual clutter.
Prompt & settings used
Prompt
Create a vertical social ad for a fictional running shoe named AERO. Keep the top 15 percent empty. Directly below it, place the headline "RUN LIGHT" in the upper-left. Show exactly one silver shoe in the lower-right, an orange trail curving from the bottom-left, and a round badge reading "42 KM". No other shoes or text.
Structured UI graphic
Depends on the taskBoth images satisfy the structured pricing graphic requirements with exact text, three columns, three rows per column, and one blue SELECT button per column. Neither has a clear rubric-based advantage.
- The graphic contains the exact title "CHOOSE YOUR PLAN" and exactly three columns labeled "STARTER", "PRO", and "TEAM": tie, both images show the title exactly as "CHOOSE YOUR PLAN" and the three column labels exactly as "STARTER", "PRO", and "TEAM".
- Each column contains exactly three aligned rows labeled "PROJECTS", "STORAGE", and "SUPPORT": tie, both images show each column with exactly the row labels "PROJECTS", "STORAGE", and "SUPPORT" in the same order and aligned across the columns.
- Each column contains exactly one blue button labeled "SELECT": tie, both images show one blue button per column, each labeled exactly "SELECT".
- The columns are evenly aligned, with no additional columns or text: tie, both images use three evenly spaced columns with no extra columns and no additional rendered text beyond "CHOOSE YOUR PLAN", "STARTER", "PRO", "TEAM", "PROJECTS", "STORAGE", "SUPPORT", and "SELECT".
Prompt & settings used
Prompt
Create a clean horizontal pricing comparison graphic titled "CHOOSE YOUR PLAN". Use exactly three equal columns labeled "STARTER", "PRO", and "TEAM". Under each column, show exactly three aligned rows labeled "PROJECTS", "STORAGE", and "SUPPORT", followed by one blue button labeled "SELECT". White background, dark navy text, no additional columns or text.
Six-reference object binding and edit
Better here: GPT Image 2LEFT is slightly better because both outputs satisfy most replacements, but RIGHT introduces a leaf/stem detail on one lemon that appears to mix fruit attributes. The remaining differences are small and Reference 1 cannot be fully verified from the shown outputs.
- The red mug and white towel are replaced by the dark navy-blue mug from Reference 2 and the green-and-white striped napkin from Reference 3: tie. Both images visibly show a dark navy mug in the mug area and a green-and-white striped folded cloth in the towel area. The exact match to the references cannot be fully assessed from the outputs alone.
- The green pear and blue notebook are replaced by exactly one orange from Reference 4 and the mustard-yellow hardcover notebook from Reference 5; none of the original four source objects remain: tie. Both images show one orange and one mustard-yellow notebook, with no visible red mug, white towel, green pear, or blue notebook remaining.
- Exactly the two lemons from Reference 6 appear to the right of the mug, with no extra, missing, duplicated, or cross-bound fruit or objects: left does better. LEFT shows two plain yellow lemons to the right of the mug. RIGHT also shows two lemons, but the left lemon has a green leaf and stem-like detail, which visually looks cross-bound from the orange object.
- Reference 1 remains the base: camera, framing, tabletop and wood grain, lighting, shadows, and all unedited spatial relationships stay unchanged: tie. Both preserve a similar wooden tabletop scene with natural lighting and comparable object layout, but without seeing Reference 1 this criterion cannot be verified exactly.
Reference images
Prompt & settings used
Prompt
Use Reference 1 as the base tabletop scene. Replace the red mug with the exact dark navy-blue mug from Reference 2 in the same position and orientation. Replace the folded white towel with the exact green-and-white striped napkin from Reference 3 in the same folded area. Replace the green pear with exactly one orange from Reference 4 in the same position. Replace the blue notebook with the exact mustard-yellow hardcover notebook from Reference 5 in the same position. Add exactly the two lemons from Reference 6 to the right of the mug. Preserve the wooden table, camera, framing, wood grain, lighting, shadows, and all other spatial relationships from Reference 1. Do not copy the white product backgrounds from References 2–6, duplicate any asset, or add other objects.
In-image text replacement
Depends on the taskBoth images satisfy the requested text replacement with no visible spelling or extra-character errors. RIGHT may integrate the lettering scale slightly more naturally, but the difference is small without the original reference, so this is a tie.
- The sign reads exactly "NIGHT OWL" and the old text is completely gone: both sides render the sign text as "NIGHT OWL", and no previous text is visible on either sign.
- No additional or malformed characters appear on the sign: both sides show only "NIGHT OWL" with no extra letters, marks, or visibly malformed characters.
- The original font character, spacing, and perspective are preserved: both sides use similar block uppercase lettering aligned to the sign perspective; LEFT's letters appear a bit larger and more widely spread, while RIGHT's text looks slightly more naturally scaled, but the original reference is not visible so this is hard to assess definitively.
- The sign material, lighting, and surrounding scene remain unchanged: both sides keep the dark green wooden sign surface, daylight shadows, storefront, lamps, windows, plants, and bench looking consistent; no clear scene alteration advantage is visible.
Reference images
Prompt & settings used
Prompt
Replace only the sign text with exactly "NIGHT OWL". Preserve the original font style, spacing, perspective, sign material, lighting, and everything else.
Multi-reference identity and garment transfer
Depends on the taskBoth outputs satisfy the main edit: the person remains in the original portrait scene and wears the requested denim shearling jacket with the red sleeve patch. LEFT has stronger jacket detail, while RIGHT has slightly more natural integration, so there is no clear overall winner.
- The output preserves the same facial identity, expression, hair, pose, body proportions, and framing as Reference 1: cannot fully assess against Reference 1 because only the outputs are shown. Visibly, both keep a similar centered portrait, neutral expression, loose dark hair, hands-at-waist pose, gray wall background, and window edge framing; RIGHT looks slightly more natural in facial rendering, while LEFT is a bit more polished/smoothed.
- The worn jacket matches Reference 2 in material, color, collar, buttons, pockets, and sleeve patch: cannot verify exactness against Reference 2, but both show a light blue denim jacket with cream shearling collar, metal buttons, flap chest pockets, and a red sleeve patch. LEFT shows sharper denim texture, stitching, buttons, and pocket structure; RIGHT has the same major garment cues but a slightly simplified jacket surface.
- The black suit jacket is fully replaced without copying the mannequin or product background from Reference 2: both sides fully replace the black jacket with the denim jacket, and neither shows a ghost mannequin or white product background. This criterion is a tie from the visible outputs.
- Hands, garment fit, occlusion, shadows, and lighting are physically coherent with the person and original scene: RIGHT is slightly better because the jacket fit, sleeve placement, and hand occlusion look more integrated and less bulky. LEFT is mostly coherent, but the jacket front and lower button/placket area look a bit more artificial and crowded around the hands.
Reference images
Prompt & settings used
Prompt
Use the portrait in Reference 1 for the person and the isolated jacket in Reference 2 for the garment. Dress the person from Reference 1 in the exact jacket shown in Reference 2. Preserve the person's identity, face, expression, skin, hair, hands, pose, body proportions, background, framing, and lighting from Reference 1. Preserve the jacket's material, color, collar, buttons, pockets, and sleeve patch from Reference 2. Do not copy the ghost mannequin or white product background.
Coherent scene relighting
Better here: Seedream 5 ProRight is stronger overall. Left makes the golden-hour source very obvious, but right handles the relighting more coherently with clearer directional highlights and shadows and less of an all-over yellow wash.
- Warm golden-hour light clearly enters from the left window: left does better because the low sun and strong golden glow are visible through the left window, making the source unmistakable; right also shows warm light from that side but the source is less explicit.
- Highlights and shadow directions respond coherently to the new light source: right does better because the rectangular window highlights on the wall and sofa, the plant shadow, and the darker cast areas behind objects align more consistently with light entering from the left. Left has plausible shadows too, but the illumination spreads more broadly and less precisely.
- The result is more than a uniform yellow color filter: right does better because it has localized sun patches, contrast, and directional shadow shapes while keeping some neutral wall and rug tones. Left has directional effects, but the whole room is more heavily washed in golden color.
- No furniture or decor is moved, added, removed, or redesigned: tie. Both images show the same visible room elements: left window, sofa, plant, coffee table, rug, and floor lamp, with no obvious added or missing furniture or decor between the two outputs.
Reference images
Prompt & settings used
Prompt
Change the lighting to warm golden-hour sunlight entering from the left window. Do not move, add, remove, or redesign any object. Update highlights and shadows coherently.
Cross-ratio outpainting
Better here: GPT Image 2Left is slightly better because it keeps the central cabin composition more convincingly centered while still producing natural side extensions. The difference is modest because both outputs satisfy the outpainting request visually.
- The final output is 16:9 with natural new content on both sides: tie. Both images appear as wide landscape frames, and both continue the beach, ocean, and sky across the full width in a plausible way.
- The complete original image remains centered without cropping or stretching: left does better. The cabin is close to the center and appears more like a preserved central subject, while the right image places the cabin slightly left of center and the framing looks more altered, with the cabin smaller in the scene.
- The original cabin, shoreline, and internal composition remain unchanged: cannot be fully assessed without seeing the original source image. Visibly, both keep a similar cabin, shoreline, and horizon arrangement, though the right image appears to have changed the subject scale more than the left.
- Extensions have no visible seams, mirrored filler, or repeated objects: tie. I do not see obvious seam lines, mirrored beach/ocean patterns, or duplicated objects in either image; both side extensions look continuous.
Reference images
Prompt & settings used
Prompt
Expand the canvas to a 16:9 landscape by naturally continuing the beach, ocean, and sky on both sides. Keep the complete original image centered without cropping, stretching, letterboxing, or modifying it.
Product preservation across scene change
Better here: GPT Image 2Left better satisfies the scene change while preserving visible product detail and producing a more convincing wet dusk basketball-court placement.
- The sneaker is convincingly placed on a wet outdoor basketball court at dusk: left does better. It shows a visible hoop/backboard, fence, court surface, wet pavement, and dusk sky; right shows wet court lines, fence, and dusk lighting, but the basketball-court context is less explicit without a visible hoop.
- Its silhouette, sole geometry, stitching, materials, and camera angle remain consistent: this cannot be fully assessed without the original sneaker image. Visibly, left preserves more fine stitching, leather grain, lace texture, and sole detail, while right is cleaner and slightly more simplified.
- The black geometric side mark remains unchanged and readable as the same shape: this cannot be fully assessed without the original mark. Visibly, both have a readable black angular side mark; left’s mark has sharper edges and stronger contrast, while right’s is also clear but a bit simpler-looking.
- Contact shadow, wet-surface reflection, and dusk lighting are physically coherent: left does better overall. It has a strong wet reflection of the shoe and mark plus darker dusk ambience; right has plausible puddle reflections and contact, but the shoe appears more evenly lit and less integrated with the dusk environment.
Reference images
Prompt & settings used
Prompt
Place the sneaker on a wet outdoor basketball court at dusk. Preserve the exact sneaker shape, black geometric side mark, materials, stitching, sole geometry, and camera angle. Add physically coherent contact, reflections, and dusk lighting.
Cost & latency
GPT Image 2 starts at 20 credits, while Seedream 5 Pro starts at 25 credits, so GPT Image 2 is the lower-credit option for these image runs. In this fixed-prompt run, the observed latency samples for GPT Image 2 ranged from 81370ms to 189546ms, while Seedream 5 Pro ranged from 38569ms to 141015ms; treat those as run samples, not benchmark figures.
How we compared & disclosure
For each scenario, the same fixed prompt was run with each model, and the generated outputs were published as generated. Banana Pie sells access to both GPT Image 2 and Seedream 5 Pro, so this page is a reproducible side-by-side run rather than an independent benchmark or absolute ranking.
Banana Pie sells paid access to this model alongside other models in one studio. Our verdicts come from tests run through the same pipeline our users get.