https://t.co/Zk4ybPWGfo

AmirMušić on X: "https://t.co/Zk4ybPWGfo" / X

AmirMušić

@AmirMushich

$

Design with AI: Which models are best?

10

12

95

198

New creative AI models arrive faster than most of us can test them. Their demos show what a model can do at its best - so it feels like “ all models are just great ” . But it’s hard to tell which one to use for what. Even experienced teams are losing hours comparing models before production begins.

We’ve got a solution: OpenArt Arena narrows that choice with rankings for creative work.

Their judges and community compare outputs without seeing the model names. The rankings are split by creative task, so you can start with strong candidates for your EXACT work.

I tested 3 Arena shortlists on one brand in 3 design categories:

• product image,

• graphic design piece,

• and a 5-sec motion piece.

This article is sponsored by OpenArt. Thanks to the team for supporting this post and my work for you.

You’ll see the outputs , my picks and the details that decided them. I review brand fidelity , design quality and what each result needs before delivery. Price adds a practical constraint to that choice.

Download my own Design_Judgment_Skill.md & use my method on your work - in the end of this article

METHODOLOGY: 3 DESIGN TASKS for 1 BRAND

For these tests, I built Luka, a fictional coffee brand. Its brandbook defines the logo, fonts, palette, photography and rules for using them. It gives every model a shared visual reference.

Free brand assets:

• Open the Luka brandbook

• Download the offline HTML

• Get the complete brand kit

The kit includes source logos, visual references, a brand JSON file and the fonts with their licenses.

The brandbook & created with Claude and used as the design source of truth

I selected the top-3 models from each relevant Arena board:

• Overall (for product images)

• Graphic design (for posters)

• Motion design (for the animated poster)

Within each task, the models get the same reference and prompt. I keep the first technically successful result, without rerolling for taste. The video files have different native resolutions and frame rates, so I focus on motion and text stability rather than resolution alone.

My criteria: - brand fidelity, - design quality, - and generation price.

A lower price matters when the output is usable. It can change my pick, especially if the task needs many assets.

Arena supplies the shortlist. My review shows which result I would use for my brand, why, and what needs fixing ( in my opinion - which is not a 100% canon for everyone ).

Price check

Before each test, I look at both views of the same Arena board:

• Score gives me the three candidates.

• Price shows their board scores alongside the listed cost per generation.

I weigh run cost against the result and the work needed to finish it. My tables list OpenArt credits at the selected settings. Arena’s dollar quotes use its own comparison settings. One output per model cannot establish the average cost of an approved asset.

Arena Score/Price chart

Arena shortlist → production test

• Open OpenArt Arena and choose the board that matches your task.

• Use Score to shortlist 3 models, Price for the cost of each attempt.

• Open the models in OpenArt Suite and give each the same brand reference and task brief.

• Compare the outputs against the brand rules. Choose the result you can actually finish and deliver.

DESIGN TESTS

Below are my tests on 3 types of design tasks:

1. Product image

The job: Make one editorial image of a Luka coffee pouch. The supplied logo must appear on the label, with its arch, wordmark, and descriptor intact. The pouch, print, light, and shadows must look plausible.

Photo/branding check: does the label follow the pouch’s angle, and does the logo match the source, & more? A good product photo with a redrawn logo still needs a production fix.

Logo check: I align the source SVG to each label in After Effects. The red overlay reveals changes to the mark.

Seedream 5.0 Pro is closest to the source lockup in this sample. Nano Banana Pro shifts some details. GPT Image 2 has the most visible mismatch.

Red: the original Luka SVG, carefully aligned to each label in After Effects. Black: the untouched logo rendered by the model. The visible gaps show where it changed the source artwork.

VERDICT: All 3 outputs work as professional mockups.

MY PICK: 1. I’d choose Seedream: the pouch stands out naturally, and the paper, label and light fit Luka’s warm, human character. 2. Nano Banana is convincing, but the brighter background and cramped counter weaken the product’s presence. 3. GPT Image gives useful café context; weaker separation, the tabletop geometry and a more processed look put it third for this image.

Model / My pick

Brand fidelity

Design quality

My verdict

Run cost*

#1 · Seedream 5.0 Pro

9.5/10

10/10

My pick. Clear product focus, tactile paper and natural light fit Luka best.

30 credits

#2 · Nano Banana Pro

9/10

Convincing materials and label. The bright background and cramped counter weaken the product’s presence.

40 credits

#3 · GPT Image 2

8.7/10

8.5/10

Strong café context. Weaker product separation, uneven tabletop geometry and a more processed look.

33 credits

*Credits per 1K image. GPT Image 2: Medium quality. Scores are my subjective ratings for these outputs.

Price verdict: Seedream is also the lowest-cost run at 30 credits. Price strengthens my first pick.

2. Graphic design

The job: Make a flat Luka poster from a supplied desk photograph. Set two exact lines of copy. Build a clear grid and hierarchy. Use the complete Luka lockup. No invented offers, dates, or slogans.

I check the whole layout first, then the logo, letterforms and small copy against the brandbook.

My pick:

• Grok Imagine 2.0 - Its photo feels open, and the composition has room to breathe.

• GPT Images - stays close to the brand & feels creative in composition, but lacks the white space.

• Seedream - the font check highlighted some details: headline’s W has crossing inner diagonals. Seedream changes that construction. A good-looking headline can still change the brand’s typography - which can hurt the brand.

Source checks use enlarged frames from my review recording. They show visible differences, not measured accuracy percentages. The prompt asked for type that would suit Cormorant Garamond and DM Sans; it did not require exact font files.

Brand / type fidelity

Run cost

#1 · Grok Imagine 2.0

Complete logo retained; the arch differs from the source. Headline forms stay close to the brand font.

Open photo, generous space and good side margins. Leading and vertical alignment need refinement.

My pick. Keep the composition, tighten the headline and refine the logo’s placement.

47 credits

#2 · GPT Image 2

Logo stays visually close. Headline shapes are the closest to the source in the inspected frames.

A clear vertical structure and an interesting split layout. The narrow text column feels cramped.

My lower-cost alternative. Give the text more room or reduce its size. Keep the required punctuation.

#3 · Seedream 5.0 Pro

Logo stays close, but headline letterforms drift. Small copy is less consistent.

A pleasing Polaroid feel and the strongest headline grouping. Bottom-section alignment needs work.

I like the composition, but the type needs rebuilding before release.

Credits per 1K image. GPT Image 2 and Grok Imagine 2.0: Medium quality.

Price verdict: Grok costs 47 credits. I’d pay 14 more than GPT for this composition. For a tighter budget, GPT at 33 credits is my alternative. Seedream costs 30, but its headline needs rebuilding.

Before release, I would replace generated logos with the source SVG and set the copy in the approved fonts.

3. Motion design

The job: Animate one Luka poster for five seconds. Move the two arches, bring the headline and supporting copy out and back in, and keep the small logo fixed. Preserve the artwork and finish on the complete layout.

The full poster appears at both ends by design. These are control states: I can check what changes during movement and what returns intact. The brief tests motion control, sequencing and text stability. A campaign would need its own reveal, pacing and call to action.

For this round, I use image-to-video: upload the flat poster, give each shortlisted model the same motion brief, and request a five-second clip.

• Seedance 2.5 - Its arches reveal along their curves, which gives the movement a clear connection to Luka’s graphic identity. Text consistency is great. The timing needs work: the supporting copy finishes fading in around 4.7 seconds, leaving only about 0.3 seconds for the complete composition.

• Seedance 2.0 - has my favorite headline animation. The staggered letters add rhythm & detail while keeping their forms very coherent. It also gives the finished layout more time. The arches animation resonated less with me than in SD-2.5’s animation.

• Wan 3.0 - moves whole blocks more directly, yet its supporting copy breaks into distorted letterforms during the upward exit + the arches’ movement feels a bit random & squeezed.

Wan 3.0’s subtitle visibly breaks during the exit, around 1.6–2.1 seconds.

Brand / text fidelity

Motion quality

Run cost / settings

#1 · Seedance 2.5

No comparable severe text breakdown observed. The headline reveals within each line.

Curve-based arch reveals suit the identity. Supporting copy arrives too late.

My pick for motion direction and run cost. Tighten the sequence and extend the final pause.

300 credits 480p · 5s

#2 · Seedance 2.0

Clean letter-by-letter reveal. Letterforms stay coherent through the animation and final hold.

My favorite headline animation: staggered letters add rhythm and detail. About 1.2 seconds for the finished layout.

Keep the headline animation. Refine the timing between the arches and text.

400 credits 720p · 5s · Normal mode

#3 · Wan 3.0

Fail on text stability: the subtitle distorts during its exit, clearly visible at 1.77 seconds.

The headline travels beyond the top edge. The arches reverse at different moments.

Needs the subtitle transition rebuilt and the movement coordinated before release.

300 credits 5s · Standard mode

Price verdict: Seedance 2.5 costs the same as Wan and 100 credits less than Seedance 2.0 in these runs. Price strengthens my choice: Wan needs its supporting copy repaired, while I prefer 2.5’s motion direction. Seedance 2.0 offers my favorite headline animation, 720p output and a longer final pause.

Take my design judgment method

I recorded 60+ minutes of my video reviews for each test.

Amir Design Judgment is a portable doc distilled from my design reviews. Use it to review your assets, compare them or direct a revision against your own brief / brand rules.

Download SKILL.md

and give it to your AI agent/chat that can inspect your images or video. Add your visual assets, their purpose and your constraints.

My method connects a visible detail to its effect, the task, a decision and the next action. This is version 0.1; I’ll develop it through my further reviews.

Try it in your agent with your own brief:

Use Amir Design Judgment to compare these options for [purpose]. Explain the deciding detail, the tradeoff and the next production fix. Here are my brand rules and budget.

So which model should you use?

Which model is the best? ” Best at what? ” - is the right question.

Start with the work you need to make. Define its area first. Then go to OpenArt Arena - check its ranking of models for specific creative tasks. This is how you’ll cut the noise and select the best model for your exact task.

My test adds a narrower question: among the strongest candidates, which result best serves this brand & this deliverable?

That last choice needs a designer’s judgment, so:

• Use Arena to find strong candidates,

• then test them against the brief you actually need to deliver.

Work smart.

Explore OpenArt Arena · Open the Luka brandbook · Download the brand kit · Use Amir Design Judgment

/$

3:57 PM · Oct 7, 2026

·

37.1K

Views