HUMAIN Image 1vs.Lumina-Image 2.0
Which one is better?
We have not tested HUMAIN Image 1 ourselves yet. Neither is in the arena. Neither has an API price.
Same prompt, two images
Same task, the first image of each.
No image from the four fixed tasks for HUMAIN Image 1 yet.The product photo is archived. The provider rejected the other three fixed prompts without image output on November 1, 2026. This is not a complete GraduallyBench run.
Result for “Typography and layout”:only Lumina-Image 2.0 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 HUMAIN Image 1
The product photo is archived. The provider rejected the other three fixed prompts without image output on November 1, 2026. This is not a complete GraduallyBench run. Revisit the rejected original prompts once the provider restriction is clarified. Do not substitute prompts or assign an overall score.
DocumentationTest protocol of the images
Both models receive the same archived prompt in 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. The images are a practical visual test, not a reconstruction of the arena configuration.
Product photography
HUMAIN Image 1: manual, 1:1, one request, first output (first top-left candidate of native batch), exact UI model HUMAIN Image 1, provider-default random seed, native resolution provider default, fast mode not offered, no reference images, no selected effects, default content settings, source UI file Firefly_Create a square premium product photograph of a brushed titanium wristwatch standing 760597.png, source 2048x2048, stored 1024x1024 (Lanczos3 downscale), generated Nov 1, 2026, 10:31 PM. Source
Lumina-Image 2.0: fal, requested 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, estimated cost $0.150000, generated Nov 1, 2026, 9:38 PM. Source
Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1. Prompt SHA 256: c67fd71e91304458a2feef5c91efa8677260fab0c0099a29a2c52cb579f5b2f3
HUMAIN Image 1 image SHA 256: 4d45419d95ecd756be5e28816ca0b3d376c491685225f3602a61ec45c1476fff
Lumina-Image 2.0 image SHA 256: 74b79fcbad7565e29995c941d2b488d2edde884b307ed99e47fad994424e9dfc
The numbers at a glance
HUMAIN Image 1
not in the arena
Lumina-Image 2.0
not in the arena
HUMAIN Image 1
not tested yet
Lumina-Image 2.0
Rank 72 of 74
HUMAIN Image 1
no API price
Lumina-Image 2.0
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.
HUMAIN Image 1
- Subscription
- No HUMAIN subscription includes this model. Through other providers from €10.98 a month (Adobe Firefly Standard, with limited credits). 7 plans in Germany.
- Via API
- No API price known. Access: Web app.
- Weights
- unknown.
Lumina-Image 2.0
- Subscription
- n/a No plan in Germany names exactly this model.
- Via API
- No API price known. Access: local.
- License
- Open weights.
Subscriptions only count plans that name exactly this model. Subscription prices include VAT, API prices are in dollars.
GraduallyBench from Nov 1, 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 | HUMAIN Image 1 | Lumina-Image 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Ratings | ||
| Arena ratingfrom votes by users, higher is better | n/a | n/a |
| Arena rank | n/a | n/a |
| Arena votesmore votes, a safer rating | n/a | n/a |
| GraduallyBenchour own rating, 0 to 100 | n/a | 7 |
| GraduallyBench by task | ||
| Typography and layoutLegible text, hierarchy, and composition | n/a | 1 |
| Product photographyMaterials, reflections, and fine details | n/a | 4 |
| Character and detailAnatomy, clothing, and spatial consistency | n/a | 17 |
| InfographicNumbers, labels, and visual organization | n/a | 6 |
| API price | ||
| Per imagelower is better | n/a | n/a |
| 100 images | n/a | n/a |
| Profile | ||
| Released | n/a | Jan 25, 2025 |
| Weightsopen means: runs locally | unknown | open |
| Access | Web app | local |
| Parameters | not published | 2.6 billion |
| Largest output | not consistently published | not consistently published |
| Plans in Germanynaming exactly this model | 7 | n/a |
API prices for one image at 1,024 × 1,024 pixels according to Artificial Analysis.
Sources: HUMAIN Image 1 model source (verified Nov 1, 2026) · Lumina-Image 2.0 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 HUMAIN Image 1 and Lumina-Image 2.0 from the same arena and category. Older model versions are not used as substitutes.
Compare another matchup
More matchups
Related image model comparisons
Compare HUMAIN Image 1 and Lumina-Image 2.0 with other important image models.