After testing over a dozen image generation tools, I basically stopped looking at those ranking lists. Most of them just score based on a few carefully cherry-picked sample images, but they never test the scenarios you actually care about—like generating twenty images in a row with a locked style, making sure Chinese text isn’t blurry, or checking if hand anatomy stays stable.
And everyone weights these pain points differently. A tool that’s dead last in benchmarks might actually be the strongest for your specific niche need.
Instead of trusting rankings, just take your three most annoying use cases and run them through each tool one by one.
Twenty images in a row with the same locked-in style, never testing the rankings—but this is what really kills you when you’re actually working.
Ran each of my three headache cases through it one by one. Tried this method myself and it actually works.
“Chinese text not being blurry” alone already eliminates half of the so-called “strong models.”
I totally buy that the bottom-tier tools can be the best for niche needs. The one I use all the time has a terrible benchmark score.
Hand anatomy stability depends on the person, so a one-size-fits-all ranking list really doesn’t mean much.
The sample images are already cherry-picked and scored, so the whole thing’s pretty sketchy to begin with. Who’s gonna use their failed gens for evaluation?
The pain points really depend on the person—you hit the nail on the head. What’s someone else’s top priority might be totally useless to me.
Honestly, rankings don’t mean shit—look at the bad reviews instead. The cases where people messed up are way more useful than those polished sample images.
I only trust my own three test images now. If a model can’t handle those, it’s an instant pass.