Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFTvs.Lumina-Image 2.0

Which one is better?

In our own test both are on par. Neither is in the arena. Neither has an API price.

Test images

Same task, the first image of each. The task with the biggest difference is preselected.

Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT: Character and detail, first image from the fixed test run — Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT65 out of 100

Lumina-Image 2.0: Character and detail, first image from the fixed test run — Lumina-Image 2.023 out of 100

Result for “Character and detail”:Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT slightly ahead

Prompt given to both modelsCreate 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.

What the rating looks at: Anatomy, clothing, and spatial consistency.

“Ahead”: better in all three rating rounds. “Slightly ahead”: a higher value, but not in every round.

Test protocol of the images

Each test attempt uses the same archived prompt and one request. The first output of that attempt counts. Repeats after technical test failures are disclosed for the affected images. 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.

Character and detail

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: 985a75b38642a9f0e5e0c0e0c67f1b7f67780d42bd2168fa24e9a7a7a94b0da6

Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT image SHA 256: 8d193e702ad1aa0fccdb45f5d1474d60e21d455fa58d13470edd2796af0f2aed

Lumina-Image 2.0 image SHA 256: 8747df0401d91598486735bfff5d6bac6c139727a8bc50c60bf7f697f678b85f

Infographic

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: ed65cb4e6a51e2336f8b149ad4cbb16e020f07d527ad94362e719d2dcf91d94f

Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT image SHA 256: e102016732db9e8e463504a83ac0770ff8a3c4c77918143d0f9dae8498c79101

Lumina-Image 2.0 image SHA 256: b937b28f3c3209280c5828e18c85341d3ca443175020ca1e407dae035b5df14f

Product photography

Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT: manual, local PyTorch 2.13.0, Diffusers 0.36.0; kandinskylab/Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-sft-Diffusers@c0158b5b20858d1fc02088db7ed4d805a296498b; native 1024x1024, 1:1; one request, first output; steps=50, guidance=3.5, seed=4636200764941689006; mps for text encoder and denoising; cpu for native VAE decode; bfloat16 for text encoders; float32 for transformer and CPU VAE; native tokenizer truncation: CLIP 80 to 77 tokens; archived input unchanged, generated Nov 2, 2026, 8:02 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

Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT image SHA 256: 73b31dc5a48059f7712c6a125ac4855f2401133101172c4bfbaa11b76c5ceee1

Lumina-Image 2.0 image SHA 256: 74b79fcbad7565e29995c941d2b488d2edde884b307ed99e47fad994424e9dfc

Typography and layout

Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT: manual, local PyTorch 2.13.0, Diffusers 0.36.0; kandinskylab/Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-sft-Diffusers@c0158b5b20858d1fc02088db7ed4d805a296498b; native 1024x1024, 1:1; one request, first output; steps=50, guidance=3.5, seed=378697477899808767; mps for text encoder and denoising; cpu for native VAE decode; bfloat16 for text encoders; float32 for transformer and CPU VAE; three local execution attempts: first aborted on an MPS dtype error; second returned an unsaved latent but the runner read the wrong output field; accepted first saved image after correcting that field with unchanged prompt, seed and FP32 sampling settings; lost latent content remains unknown, generated Nov 2, 2026, 7:52 PM. Source

Lumina-Image 2.0: fal, requested 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, estimated cost $0.150000, generated Nov 1, 2026, 9:37 PM. Source

Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1. Prompt SHA 256: 2e012c3d14ee5dd02203a94f394ca80a5038cdebd6032b25a8b8a221f2255419

Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT image SHA 256: a84280dd219692f7b20722a37491d6788d1ecdc594f816fa1203981642501ab2

Lumina-Image 2.0 image SHA 256: f132c159d659fb76c94cd82f1decb617c475b9c4095b177d02b73f09f2954df0

The numbers at a glance

Arena ratingfrom votes by users · higher is better

n/a

Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT

not in the arena

n/a

Lumina-Image 2.0

not in the arena

GraduallyBenchour own rating, 0 to 100 · higher is better

Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT

Rank 79 of 108

Lumina-Image 2.0

Rank 97 of 108

Price per imagedollars through the API · lower is better

n/a

Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT

no API price

n/a

Lumina-Image 2.0

no API price

Ranks among the 21 image models with an arena rating and the 108 with a GraduallyBench run; prices compared with 28 models with an API price.

Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT

Subscription: n/a No plan in Germany names exactly this model.
Via API: No API price known. Access: local.
License: Open weights.

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 3, 2026 · Subscription database from Sep 29, 2026 (38 days old)

All data side by side

The better value is bold. For ratings only when the gap is clear.

Kennzahl	Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT	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	34	18
GraduallyBench by task
Typography and layoutLegible text, hierarchy, and composition	21	18
Product photographyMaterials, reflections, and fine details	15	16
Character and detailAnatomy, clothing, and spatial consistency	65	23
InfographicNumbers, labels, and visual organization	33	16
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	open	open
Access	local	local
Parameters	6 billion	2.6 billion
Largest output	not consistently published	not consistently published
Plans in Germanynaming exactly this model	n/a	n/a

API prices for one image at 1,024 × 1,024 pixels according to Artificial Analysis.

Sources: Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT 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 Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT and Lumina-Image 2.0 from the same arena and category. Older model versions are not used as substitutes.

More comparisons

Compare Kandinsky-5.0-T2I-Lite-SFT and Lumina-Image 2.0 with the models people compare them with most often.

Compare another matchup

First image modelSecond image model