Head-to-head comparison

GPT Image 2 vs. Seedream 4.0

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 2 and Seedream 4.0
Attribute	GPT Image 2	Seedream 4.0
Provider	OpenAI	ByteDance
Released	April 2026	September 2025
Access	API, Web app	API, Web app
Lifecycle	No separate lifecycle notice	No separate lifecycle notice
Weights	Proprietary	Proprietary
Parameters	Not published	Not published
Maximum output	4K	4K
Arena configuration	High	No separate configuration named
Text-to-image price	$211 per 1,000 images	$30 per 1,000 images
Editing price	$211 per 1,000 images	$30 per 1,000 images
Technical source	Model sourceVerified 2026-08-15	Model sourceVerified 2026-08-15

GPT Image 2Seedream 4.0

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

GPT Image 2$211

Seedream 4.0$30

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

GPT Image 2$211

Seedream 4.0$30

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 26 results from published research benchmarks.

GPT Image 2Seedream 4.0

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

GPT Image 235.8 / 100

Seedream 4.018.5 / 100

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

GPT Image 295.1 / 100

Seedream 4.019.7 / 100

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

GPT Image 276.6 / 100

Seedream 4.013.6 / 100

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

GPT Image 276.6 / 100

Seedream 4.067.9 / 100

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Capability benchmark scores for GPT Image 2 and Seedream 4.0
Benchmark	GPT Image 2	Seedream 4.0
GenExam Mathematics, strict	Higher benchmark score50.3 %	2.6 %
GenExam Physics, strict	Higher benchmark score79.6 %	3.5 %
GenExam Chemistry, strict	Higher benchmark score69.5 %	5.9 %
GenExam Biology, strict	Higher benchmark score89.1 %	18.6 %
GenExam Geography, strict	Higher benchmark score84.8 %	10.6 %
GenExam Computer science, strict	Higher benchmark score73.5 %	6.9 %
GenExam Engineering, strict	Higher benchmark score79.3 %	11.7 %
GenExam Economics, strict	Higher benchmark score83.1 %	5.2 %
GenExam Music, strict	Higher benchmark score64.6 %	0 %
GenExam History, strict	Higher benchmark score82.9 %	7.3 %
GenExam overall, strict	Higher benchmark score74.6 %	7.2 %
GenExam Mathematics, relaxed	Higher benchmark score85.2 %	39.8 %
GenExam Physics, relaxed	Higher benchmark score95.6 %	49 %
GenExam Chemistry, relaxed	Higher benchmark score92 %	46.1 %
GenExam Biology, relaxed	Higher benchmark score97.5 %	71 %
GenExam Geography, relaxed	Higher benchmark score97.6 %	65.1 %
GenExam Computer science, relaxed	Higher benchmark score93.3 %	52.2 %
GenExam Engineering, relaxed	Higher benchmark score96.5 %	60 %
GenExam Economics, relaxed	Higher benchmark score97.7 %	56 %
GenExam Music, relaxed	Higher benchmark score89.1 %	34.5 %
GenExam History, relaxed	Higher benchmark score97.1 %	56.7 %
GenExam overall, relaxed	Higher benchmark score93.8 %	53 %
GRADE reasoning	Higher benchmark score82.2 / 100	32.4 / 100
GRADE consistency	Higher benchmark score94.4 / 100	53.2 / 100
GRADE readability	Higher benchmark score98.8 / 100	77 / 100
GRADE accuracy	Higher benchmark score56 / 100	3.1 / 100
Gradually sample test: Typography and layout	Higher blind-rank score35.8 / 100 Mean rank: 18.33 (22 / 11 / 22) Five rubric scores Headline: 1.67 / 2 Subline: 1.67 / 2 Text control: 1.67 / 2 Visual brief: 1 / 2 Layout: 1.33 / 2	18.5 / 100 Mean rank: 23 (23 / 23 / 23) 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	Higher blind-rank score95.1 / 100 Mean rank: 2.33 (3 / 3 / 1) Five rubric scores Subject: 1.33 / 2 Time: 1.33 / 2 Watch details: 1.33 / 2 Photography: 1.33 / 2 Exclusions: 1.33 / 2	19.7 / 100 Mean rank: 22.67 (23 / 23 / 22) Five rubric scores Subject: 1.33 / 2 Time: 1.33 / 2 Watch details: 1.33 / 2 Photography: 1.33 / 2 Exclusions: 0.67 / 2
Gradually sample test: Character and detail	Higher blind-rank score76.6 / 100 Mean rank: 7.33 (12 / 9 / 1) Five rubric scores Scene: 1.33 / 2 Wardrobe: 1.33 / 2 Anatomy: 1.33 / 2 Props: 1 / 2 Environment: 1 / 2	13.6 / 100 Mean rank: 24.33 (26 / 26 / 21) Five rubric scores Scene: 1.33 / 2 Wardrobe: 1.33 / 2 Anatomy: 1 / 2 Props: 0.33 / 2 Environment: 1.33 / 2
Gradually sample test: Infographic	Higher blind-rank score76.6 / 100 Mean rank: 7.33 (10 / 5 / 7) Five rubric scores Title: 1.67 / 2 Sequence: 1.67 / 2 Labels: 1.67 / 2 Diagram: 1.33 / 2 Clarity: 1.67 / 2	67.9 / 100 Mean rank: 9.67 (6 / 8 / 15) Five rubric scores Title: 1.67 / 2 Sequence: 1.67 / 2 Labels: 1.67 / 2 Diagram: 1 / 2 Clarity: 1.67 / 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.

2 shared result series

GPT Image 2Seedream 4.0

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

GPT Image 21,371 Elo

Seedream 4.01,227 Elo

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

GPT Image 21,257 Elo

Seedream 4.01,185 Elo

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Arena benchmark scores for GPT Image 2 and Seedream 4.0
Benchmark	GPT Image 2	Seedream 4.0	Source
Text to Image Arena	Higher score1,371 Elo Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±10, 14,328 ratings	1,227 Elo Rank 17, 95% confidence interval: ±11, 4,603 ratings	Artificial AnalysisRetrieved 2026-08-26
Image Editing Arena	Higher score1,257 Elo Rank 5, 95% confidence interval: ±6, 18,356 ratings	1,185 Elo Rank 29, 95% confidence interval: ±7, 10,984 ratings	Artificial AnalysisRetrieved 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 2. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID openai/gpt-image-2, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:13 PM. Source
Seedream 4.0. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID ByteDance-Seed/Seedream-4.0, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:24 PM. Source

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

Prompt SHA 256: 985a75b38642a9f0e5e0c0e0c67f1b7f67780d42bd2168fa24e9a7a7a94b0da6

GPT Image 2, image SHA 256: 82f6e2369ab4fb6efb0ef48feeff0d14f1d6087c64c35113a983456f0f0879ac

GPT Image 2, request SHA 256: db4ca97dc43effd578430b77f8ca559c7dd5cbe60e663ba9ecc2e89a33480b0d

Seedream 4.0, image SHA 256: 81b5aa023fa252472878015448b5ee1cefcbc61844dd6cff98997685d7ab1511

Seedream 4.0, request SHA 256: 84dbdb6b71e48c5944f2d15aa4069a994358e4f10f81fa84cdef4974deee2317

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.

GPT Image 2. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID openai/gpt-image-2, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:14 PM. Source
Seedream 4.0. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID ByteDance-Seed/Seedream-4.0, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:25 PM. Source

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

Prompt SHA 256: ed65cb4e6a51e2336f8b149ad4cbb16e020f07d527ad94362e719d2dcf91d94f

GPT Image 2, image SHA 256: 6c15466e258e2b14a8e862959cb6a67b4f7a23896ea5d42c5a5618d848847711

GPT Image 2, request SHA 256: ed741d3d120188b9286d3576e7dcd3ace9dd7792978d4d5426022f32ed7ca381

Seedream 4.0, image SHA 256: 63dcddf4bf7bb58ea0c67eea96f2c71834158568f29ed3b7f2523b56a91e6526

Seedream 4.0, request SHA 256: 3cdb665a8b6ba558cedce86e937f28b5daa3b3e7a8af57fe9562e13cab212c02

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.

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

Prompt SHA 256: c67fd71e91304458a2feef5c91efa8677260fab0c0099a29a2c52cb579f5b2f3

GPT Image 2, image SHA 256: 471c71b30618afb1a8a67ab8363308d67f99c65ef6740ca72417806d06d3c346

GPT Image 2, request SHA 256: 7b27ff2c9b64529a36bebf2d572c3448f26e68f3e9d1ac6a3f2b5ead8698f60f

Seedream 4.0, image SHA 256: 1fbad61d03b05e6cd8523e76409983e86c11c74fca2fa1a14d20f07f0d801519

Seedream 4.0, request SHA 256: 55ce222b205d1832a107db6db7f13941b81298037e4bdf6c0d25054a1dc96c7c

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 2. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID openai/gpt-image-2, generated Aug 14, 2026, 1:59 PM. Source
Seedream 4.0. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID ByteDance-Seed/Seedream-4.0, generated Aug 14, 2026, 2:01 PM. Source

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

Prompt SHA 256: 2e012c3d14ee5dd02203a94f394ca80a5038cdebd6032b25a8b8a221f2255419

GPT Image 2, image SHA 256: 434cf9939b9be2a2c2711e13d027c9438c47038bb32229ceeaf405d2e89d2afc

GPT Image 2, request SHA 256: 473a774dfe9f9b7bb597e9e8b63af4e770b6bc4e7f8bc90682636db3516e7353

Seedream 4.0, image SHA 256: 029be40f71522352246ad0de0de2e6c1ed2e45608f59c4f0e1be87b4dc2353c1

Seedream 4.0, request SHA 256: b2353ce00afff8f1dad912b51b418a7ea7da741b587814625f1ca7fc492b02c5

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 2 and Seedream 4.0 with other important image models using the same benchmark and sample methodology.

View the complete image model comparison

GPT Image 2 vs. Seedream 4.0

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