Qwen Image 2512 vs Seedream V4.5

Character portraits with environmental context reveal how each model handles human features alongside complex surroundings. The fisherman scene tests skin detail, lighting on weathered features, and the atmospheric quality of a working waterfront.

In our testing, both models produced convincing portraits. Qwen rendered skin textures with a natural, documentary quality—pores and wrinkles visible without artificial enhancement. Seedream produced slightly more polished results with marginally better detail consistency, though some might find its output trends toward a more commercial aesthetic. The difference is subtle and largely a matter of stylistic preference.

Product photography demands accurate material rendering and appealing lighting. The ceramic mug with steam creates challenges: the glaze finish, rising vapor, wooden grain, and natural light all need to work together convincingly.

Seedream showed a slight edge here, producing more polished commercial-style imagery with cleaner compositions. Qwen's output was attractive and usable but with a more casual, lifestyle feel rather than studio-perfected aesthetic. For e-commerce and marketing materials where a refined look matters, Seedream's approach may better suit expectations.

Environmental scenes with atmospheric effects test a model's ability to create depth, manage fog and mist, and render architectural elements within natural settings. The Chinese mountain landscape provides cultural context that both teams—Alibaba and ByteDance—should understand well.

Both models handled this scene competently. Qwen's atmospheric rendering was particularly natural, with convincing fog behavior and smooth tonal gradations. Seedream produced similar quality with perhaps slightly more dramatic compositions. The difference was minimal—both models clearly have strong landscape capabilities.

Capturing moments of action—liquid pouring, steam rising, subtle motion—tests how models interpret dynamic prompts. The latte art scene requires convincing fluid dynamics alongside food photography aesthetics.

Both models produced appealing results, though Seedream's faster inference and higher benchmark scores didn't necessarily translate to better motion rendering. Qwen handled the fluid dynamics convincingly, and in some generations, its more natural aesthetic produced more believable action shots. This category showed no clear winner.

At standard 1MP resolution, Seedream costs about twice as much as Qwen. However, Seedream's flat pricing changes the calculus for high-resolution work: a 4K image costs the same as standard, while Qwen charges proportionally more per megapixel at higher resolutions.

For standard resolution text-to-image work, Qwen offers excellent value—you can generate twice as many images for the same cost. Seedream justifies its premium through faster generation, higher benchmarks, image input support, and resolution options. The right choice depends on which features matter for your specific workflow.