Head-to-head comparison

GPT Image 1.5 vs. FLUX.2 Pro

Compare shared capability tests, arena scores with documented retrieval dates, task-specific image pricing, and verified specifications. Research benchmarks, preference arenas, and our n = 1 samples remain separate.

shared result series: 32
shared sample prompts: 4
latest arena retrieval: 2026-08-26

First image modelSecond image model

Specifications and cost

General specifications and task-specific pricing

A model can have one price for generating new images and another for editing. Prices therefore remain tied to the corresponding arena configuration.

Specifications and pricing for GPT Image 1.5 and FLUX.2 Pro
Attribute	GPT Image 1.5	FLUX.2 Pro
Provider	OpenAI	Black Forest Labs
Released	December 2025	November 2025
Access	API, Web app	API, Web app
Lifecycle	Marked as deprecated by OpenAI Status source	No separate lifecycle notice
Weights	Proprietary	Proprietary
Parameters	Not published	Not published
Maximum output	1,536 × 1,024 pixels	4 Megapixel
Arena configuration	High	Pro
Text-to-image price	$133 per 1,000 images	$30 per 1,000 images
Editing price	$133 per 1,000 images	$45 per 1,000 images
Technical source	Model sourceVerified 2026-08-15	Model sourceVerified 2026-08-15

GPT Image 1.5FLUX.2 Pro

Text to Image ArenaUSD per 1,000 images at 1,024 × 1,024 pixels

GPT Image 1.5$133

FLUX.2 Pro$30

Image Editing ArenaUSD per 1,000 images at 1,024 × 1,024 pixels

GPT Image 1.5$133

FLUX.2 Pro$45

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Prompt adherence and specialist tests

Shared capability benchmarks

Every matchup includes the same four Gradually sample tasks. For each task, one archived first output from every model is ranked in three differently ordered, model-blind passes. The published 0-100 value normalizes the mean rank. It must still be read as an n = 1 sample per model. This pair also shares 16 results from published research benchmarks.

GPT Image 1.5FLUX.2 Pro

Gradually sample test: Typography and layoutMean of three blind ranks across all 28 first outputs, n = 1 each

GPT Image 1.533.3 / 100

FLUX.2 Pro50.6 / 100

Gradually sample test: Product photographyMean of three blind ranks across all 28 first outputs, n = 1 each

GPT Image 1.537 / 100

FLUX.2 Pro43.2 / 100

Gradually sample test: Character and detailMean of three blind ranks across all 28 first outputs, n = 1 each

GPT Image 1.585.2 / 100

FLUX.2 Pro70.4 / 100

Gradually sample test: InfographicMean of three blind ranks across all 28 first outputs, n = 1 each

GPT Image 1.549.4 / 100

FLUX.2 Pro24.7 / 100

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Capability benchmark scores for GPT Image 1.5 and FLUX.2 Pro
Benchmark	GPT Image 1.5	FLUX.2 Pro
GRADE reasoning	Higher benchmark score54.5 / 100	38.9 / 100
GRADE consistency	Higher benchmark score82.3 / 100	55.5 / 100
GRADE readability	Higher benchmark score90.7 / 100	70.3 / 100
GRADE accuracy	Higher benchmark score16 / 100	4.4 / 100
GEBench Chinese, single-step	Higher benchmark score83.79 / 100	68.83 / 100
GEBench Chinese, multi-step	Higher benchmark score56.97 / 100	55.07 / 100
GEBench Chinese, fictional app	Higher benchmark score60.11 / 100	58.13 / 100
GEBench Chinese, real app	Higher benchmark score55.65 / 100	55.41 / 100
GEBench Chinese, grounding	Higher benchmark score53.33 / 100	50.24 / 100
GEBench Chinese, overall	Higher benchmark score63.22 / 100	57.54 / 100
GEBench English, single-step	Higher benchmark score80.8 / 100	61 / 100
GEBench English, multi-step	Higher benchmark score58.87 / 100	52.17 / 100
GEBench English, fictional app	Higher benchmark score63.68 / 100	49.92 / 100
GEBench English, real app	Higher benchmark score58.93 / 100	47.16 / 100
GEBench English, grounding	Higher benchmark score49.23 / 100	45.67 / 100
GEBench English, overall	Higher benchmark score63.16 / 100	51.18 / 100
Gradually sample test: Typography and layout	33.3 / 100 Mean rank: 19 (20 / 18 / 19) Five rubric scores Headline: 1.67 / 2 Subline: 1.67 / 2 Text control: 1.67 / 2 Visual brief: 1.33 / 2 Layout: 1 / 2	Higher blind-rank score50.6 / 100 Mean rank: 14.33 (11 / 22 / 10) Five rubric scores Headline: 1.67 / 2 Subline: 1.67 / 2 Text control: 1.67 / 2 Visual brief: 1 / 2 Layout: 1.33 / 2
Gradually sample test: Product photography	37 / 100 Mean rank: 18 (18 / 16 / 20) Five rubric scores Subject: 1.33 / 2 Time: 1 / 2 Watch details: 1.33 / 2 Photography: 1.33 / 2 Exclusions: 1.33 / 2	Higher blind-rank score43.2 / 100 Mean rank: 16.33 (13 / 22 / 14) Five rubric scores Subject: 1.33 / 2 Time: 1.33 / 2 Watch details: 1.33 / 2 Photography: 1.33 / 2 Exclusions: 1.33 / 2
Gradually sample test: Character and detail	Higher blind-rank score85.2 / 100 Mean rank: 5 (5 / 8 / 2) Five rubric scores Scene: 1.33 / 2 Wardrobe: 1.33 / 2 Anatomy: 1 / 2 Props: 1.33 / 2 Environment: 1.33 / 2	70.4 / 100 Mean rank: 9 (13 / 1 / 13) Five rubric scores Scene: 1.33 / 2 Wardrobe: 1.33 / 2 Anatomy: 1.33 / 2 Props: 1.33 / 2 Environment: 1.33 / 2
Gradually sample test: Infographic	Higher blind-rank score49.4 / 100 Mean rank: 14.67 (13 / 15 / 16) Five rubric scores Title: 1.67 / 2 Sequence: 1.67 / 2 Labels: 1 / 2 Diagram: 1.67 / 2 Clarity: 1 / 2	24.7 / 100 Mean rank: 21.33 (20 / 23 / 21) Five rubric scores Title: 1.67 / 2 Sequence: 1 / 2 Labels: 0.67 / 2 Diagram: 0.67 / 2 Clarity: 1 / 2
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Independent preference tests

Shared arena benchmarks

Artificial Analysis and Arena derive scores from blind comparisons. Raters see outputs for the same prompt and choose the image they prefer. Separate series cover text rendering, photorealism, portraits, art, commercial design, and image editing. Confidence intervals indicate how certain a measured lead is.

12 shared result series

GPT Image 1.5FLUX.2 Pro

Text to Image ArenaBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,310 Elo

FLUX.2 Pro1,208 Elo

Image Editing ArenaBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,251 Elo

FLUX.2 Pro1,170 Elo

LMArena Text to Image: 3D modelingBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,215.437

FLUX.2 Pro1,149.387

LMArena Text to Image: ArtBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,223.911

FLUX.2 Pro1,163.048

LMArena Text to Image: CartoonBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,243.08

FLUX.2 Pro1,161.019

LMArena Text to Image: Commercial designBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,240.908

FLUX.2 Pro1,156.46

LMArena Text to Image: OverallBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,238.658

FLUX.2 Pro1,154.786

LMArena Text to Image: PhotorealismBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,248.785

FLUX.2 Pro1,151.499

LMArena Text to Image: PortraitsBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,261.416

FLUX.2 Pro1,146.513

LMArena Text to Image: Text renderingBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,254.593

FLUX.2 Pro1,156.451

LMArena Image Editing: Multi-image editingBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,341.507

FLUX.2 Pro1,238.237

LMArena Image Editing: OverallBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,370.209

FLUX.2 Pro1,244.295

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Arena benchmark scores for GPT Image 1.5 and FLUX.2 Pro
Benchmark	GPT Image 1.5	FLUX.2 Pro	Source
Text to Image Arena	Higher score1,310 Elo Rank 5, 95% confidence interval: ±9, 13,674 ratings	1,208 Elo Rank 31, 95% confidence interval: ±9, 8,915 ratings	Artificial AnalysisRetrieved 2026-08-26
Image Editing Arena	Higher score1,251 Elo Rank 6, 95% confidence interval: ±7, 11,694 ratings	1,170 Elo Rank 33, 95% confidence interval: ±7, 11,529 ratings	Artificial AnalysisRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: 3D modeling	Higher score1,215.437 Rank 11, 95% confidence interval: ±6.83, 14,763 ratings	1,149.387 Rank 28, 95% confidence interval: ±6.29, 17,241 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Art	Higher score1,223.911 Rank 11, 95% confidence interval: ±6.08, 19,937 ratings	1,163.048 Rank 26, 95% confidence interval: ±5.76, 25,069 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Cartoon	Higher score1,243.08 Rank 10, 95% confidence interval: ±4.87, 55,661 ratings	1,161.019 Rank 27, 95% confidence interval: ±4.57, 66,010 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Commercial design	Higher score1,240.908 Rank 10, 95% confidence interval: ±4.72, 55,926 ratings	1,156.46 Rank 26, 95% confidence interval: ±4.31, 64,392 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Overall	Higher score1,238.658 Rank 11, 95% confidence interval: ±3.36, 142,427 ratings	1,154.786 Rank 26, 95% confidence interval: ±3.06, 175,196 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Photorealism	Higher score1,248.785 Rank 11, 95% confidence interval: ±4.83, 57,631 ratings	1,151.499 Rank 30, 95% confidence interval: ±4.29, 74,515 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Portraits	Higher score1,261.416 Rank 9, 95% confidence interval: ±5.95, 28,153 ratings	1,146.513 Rank 31, 95% confidence interval: ±5.23, 39,262 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Text rendering	Higher score1,254.593 Rank 10, 95% confidence interval: ±4.98, 51,503 ratings	1,156.451 Rank 27, 95% confidence interval: ±4.5, 59,326 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Image Editing: Multi-image editing	Higher score1,341.507 Rank 9, 95% confidence interval: ±4.04, 164,316 ratings	1,238.237 Rank 20, 95% confidence interval: ±3.8, 171,464 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Image Editing: Overall	Higher score1,370.209 Rank 13, 95% confidence interval: ±2.92, 531,138 ratings	1,244.295 Rank 30, 95% confidence interval: ±2.8, 497,149 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Visual comparison

Sample images

Our images complement preference data, but do not replace it. The prompt, request count, and selection rule match. Provider resolution, quality tier, randomness, and prompt processing remain visible limitations, so this is not a fully controlled laboratory test.

Largely standardized comparison protocol. Both models receive the same archived prompt, exactly one request, and the first result counts. Files are normalized to 1,024 × 1,024 pixels without cropping. Provider resolution, randomness, quality tier, and prompt processing can still differ. These images are a practical visual test, not a reconstruction of the arena configuration.

Character and detail

Anatomy, clothing, and spatial consistency

Prompt and settings

Create a square cinematic full-body portrait of a fictional bicycle courier waiting under a transparent umbrella at a rainy tram stop in Hamburg at blue hour. She wears a mustard raincoat, navy trousers, red sneakers, a silver helmet, and carries a teal messenger bag. Keep both hands visible, render the bicycle correctly, use realistic wet-street reflections, and include no readable brand names.

GPT Image 1.5. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID openai/gpt-image-1.5, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:17 PM. Source
FLUX.2 Pro. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID black-forest-labs/FLUX.2-pro, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:30 PM. Source

Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1, selection rule: first result.

Prompt SHA 256: 985a75b38642a9f0e5e0c0e0c67f1b7f67780d42bd2168fa24e9a7a7a94b0da6

GPT Image 1.5, image SHA 256: 0dff52ccd39400ac66ac8870c9ea937512ff1474688e70118688f420c38c2296

GPT Image 1.5, request SHA 256: 5199631ac6ff07633dd2fb6ab61c918c26e1e02f37e6131828072233ac04527d

FLUX.2 Pro, image SHA 256: 9eec1a6900b6031703d2e797b93c2aba6c5f45b4807b560a0bf1e37eac9e20f2

FLUX.2 Pro, request SHA 256: 8c40a10f47e1407d26ab10f5c9d815e533bce798cf0adf5a9c1e6ddfc3f3584e

Infographic

Numbers, labels, and visual organization

Prompt and settings

Create a square German infographic titled SO FUNKTIONIERT PHOTOSYNTHESE. Show exactly four numbered steps in this order: 1 LICHT, 2 WASSER, 3 CO₂, 4 ZUCKER + SAUERSTOFF. Use a clean editorial science style with one plant cross-section, simple arrows, high contrast, legible labels, and no other text.

Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1, selection rule: first result.

Prompt SHA 256: ed65cb4e6a51e2336f8b149ad4cbb16e020f07d527ad94362e719d2dcf91d94f

GPT Image 1.5, image SHA 256: 1c9ff59c32621c8b48b002dacb0ae66487262280c7c0a5b3d6456c81b248ebe9

GPT Image 1.5, request SHA 256: 7f1efc9531f1e6bed7d61a11c637add9fd892001aea2bb2781f8d89c79a2eb03

FLUX.2 Pro, image SHA 256: ea47f772cdfa26bf21528ae7e09d245eb7a3be7d3185af15cedd7d21acdfbb09

FLUX.2 Pro, request SHA 256: 9ef85d9cf32f0f9b974eeb0b389c1fbf1403f4e266af0ce98e0ca83da0fe23c1

Product photography

Materials, reflections, and fine details

Prompt and settings

Create a square premium product photograph of a brushed titanium wristwatch standing upright on dark green marble. The watch has a cream dial, thin black hands set to 10:10, twelve distinct hour markers, a realistic crown, and a dark brown leather strap. Soft window light from the left, controlled reflections, shallow depth of field, no text, no logo, no extra objects.

GPT Image 1.5. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID openai/gpt-image-1.5, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:16 PM. Source
FLUX.2 Pro. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID black-forest-labs/FLUX.2-pro, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:30 PM. Source

Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1, selection rule: first result.

Prompt SHA 256: c67fd71e91304458a2feef5c91efa8677260fab0c0099a29a2c52cb579f5b2f3

GPT Image 1.5, image SHA 256: 67cfa2f324447027ceb5f82e9446d40a1395b46ce425890a74606b4d97731cf6

GPT Image 1.5, request SHA 256: c850843a298631a4076c5d2686de8e9d7223534f2b8ca53505f437862718bef9

FLUX.2 Pro, image SHA 256: 4d9b922f59b329c5ac3532222c8e340e7fdcb1920ce6f03ad9299f25a6beec43

FLUX.2 Pro, request SHA 256: 96c65fc91b32da0a02970457fbf90c6928e1f7a5b45177fa3ef08f8bc32c9b82

Typography and layout

Legible text, hierarchy, and composition

Prompt and settings

Create a square editorial poster for an imaginary night train called MONDFALTER. Show the exact German headline MONDFALTER and the exact subline BERLIN NACH LISSABON. Use a restrained midnight-blue and warm-cream palette, one stylized moth, strong Swiss-grid typography, generous negative space, and no additional words or logos.

GPT Image 1.5. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID openai/gpt-image-1.5, generated Aug 14, 2026, 1:59 PM. Source
FLUX.2 Pro. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID black-forest-labs/FLUX.2-pro, generated Aug 14, 2026, 2:02 PM. Source

Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1, selection rule: first result.

Prompt SHA 256: 2e012c3d14ee5dd02203a94f394ca80a5038cdebd6032b25a8b8a221f2255419

GPT Image 1.5, image SHA 256: 6a4cec86850fd371b65274198e2bf630b3cf36a096f9fb953d4bfe17c3222ebe

GPT Image 1.5, request SHA 256: 9c3a396aecfcaae3f8a25edbe5c8c44d0d33199d7ba29efda864d2b0221c3250

FLUX.2 Pro, image SHA 256: 5a5d8ccd657d7522bc39fdec4b0aecf198b42c282a5aefde9461239dfe5c0396

FLUX.2 Pro, request SHA 256: 3e170f568fe4b6040423f0df065d9227f586d5da3d911a4251bcc368dfe333c0

How to read this comparison

An Elo score is not a verdict on creativity

A higher arena score means this specific configuration was preferred more often in blind comparisons.

Typography, character consistency, local execution, licensing, and price may matter more to your workload than overall visual appeal.

Prices cover 1,000 images at 1,024 × 1,024 pixels using settings documented by Artificial Analysis. Subscriptions and special rates are excluded.

More matchups

Compare GPT Image 1.5 and FLUX.2 Pro with other important image models using the same benchmark and sample methodology.

View the complete image model comparison

GPT Image 1.5 vs. FLUX.2 Pro

Change image model selection

General specifications and task-specific pricing

Shared capability benchmarks

Shared arena benchmarks

Sample images

Character and detail

Infographic

Product photography

Typography and layout

An Elo score is not a verdict on creativity

Related image model comparisons