FLUX.2 Maxvs.Ming-Image-0.1-Design
Which one is better?
We have not tested Ming-Image-0.1-Design ourselves yet. Ming-Image-0.1-Design has no arena rating yet. Ming-Image-0.1-Design has no API price.
Same prompt, two images
Same task, the first image of each.
No image from the four fixed tasks for Ming-Image-0.1-Design yet.This model does not yet have a complete GraduallyBench run.
Result for “Typography and layout”:only FLUX.2 Max tested
What the rating looks at: Legible text, hierarchy, and composition.
“Ahead”: better in all three rating rounds. “Slightly ahead”: a higher value, but not in every round.
Missing image run for Ming-Image-0.1-Design
This model does not yet have a complete GraduallyBench run. Run the missing fixed tasks, archive the first output of each, and evaluate them blind.
DocumentationThe numbers at a glance
FLUX.2 Max
Rank 16 of 22
Ming-Image-0.1-Design
not in the arena
FLUX.2 Max
Rank 20 of 74
Ming-Image-0.1-Design
not tested yet
FLUX.2 Max
fairly expensive
Ming-Image-0.1-Design
no API price
Ranks among the 22 image models with an arena rating and the 74 with a GraduallyBench run; prices compared with 28 models with an API price.
FLUX.2 Max
- Subscription
- No Black Forest Labs subscription includes this model. Through other providers from €6.83 a month (Poe Basic, with limited points). 28 plans in Germany.
- Via API
- $0.07 per image, 100 images $7.
Ming-Image-0.1-Design
- Subscription
- n/a No plan in Germany names exactly this model.
- Via API
- No API price known. Access: API, local.
- License
- Open weights.
Subscriptions only count plans that name exactly this model. Subscription prices include VAT, API prices are in dollars.
Arena rating (LMArena) from Oct 28, 2026 · GraduallyBench from Nov 1, 2026 · API prices from Oct 28, 2026 · Subscription database from Sep 29, 2026 (34 days old)
All data side by side
The better value is bold. For ratings only when the gap is clear.
| Kennzahl | FLUX.2 Max | Ming-Image-0.1-Design |
|---|---|---|
| Ratings | ||
| Arena ratingfrom votes by users, higher is better | 1,161 | n/a |
| Arena rank | Rank 16 of 22 | n/a |
| Arena votesmore votes, a safer rating | 123,144 | n/a |
| GraduallyBenchour own rating, 0 to 100 | 63 | n/a |
| GraduallyBench by task | ||
| Typography and layoutLegible text, hierarchy, and composition | 68 | n/a |
| Product photographyMaterials, reflections, and fine details | 52 | n/a |
| Character and detailAnatomy, clothing, and spatial consistency | 85 | n/a |
| InfographicNumbers, labels, and visual organization | 48 | n/a |
| API price | ||
| Per imagelower is better | $0.07 | n/a |
| 100 images | $7 | n/a |
| Profile | ||
| Released | December 2025 | n/a |
| Weightsopen means: runs locally | proprietary | open |
| Access | API, Web app | API, local |
| Parameters | not published | 6 billion |
| Largest output | 4 Megapixel | not consistently published |
| Plans in Germanynaming exactly this model | 28 | n/a |
API prices for one image at 1,024 × 1,024 pixels according to Artificial Analysis.
Sources: FLUX.2 Max model source (verified Sep 24, 2026) · Ming-Image-0.1-Design model source (verified Nov 1, 2026)
Arena ratings by category
From blind votes on LMArena. “Ahead” means the lead is clear.
No shared arena score in the stored snapshot
The stored benchmark database contains no measurement for FLUX.2 Max and Ming-Image-0.1-Design from the same arena and category. Older model versions are not used as substitutes.
Compare another matchup
More matchups
Related image model comparisons
Compare FLUX.2 Max and Ming-Image-0.1-Design with other important image models.