Seedream V4.5 vs GLM Image

Portrait photography with environmental context tests how each model handles human features, natural lighting, and atmospheric details. The ceramicist scene requires convincing skin textures, realistic fabric rendering, and the interplay of light through skylights.

In our testing, Seedream V4.5 consistently produced more naturalistic portraits with better skin rendering and more convincing lighting. GLM Image's output tended to look slightly more processed, though still professional quality. For portrait work where photorealism matters, Seedream has a noticeable edge.

Text rendering is one of the most challenging aspects of image generation. A hand-painted bookstore sign tests letter formation, consistent styling, and integration with the overall scene aesthetic.

This is where GLM Image's specialization becomes apparent. Its text rendering consistently produced more accurate letterforms with better consistency across the sign. Seedream V4.5's text was often serviceable but showed more variation between generations and occasional character issues. For designs where readable text is essential, GLM Image justifies consideration despite other trade-offs.

Product photography demands precise material rendering, controlled lighting, and attention to surface textures. A wooden chess set tests wood grain rendering, marble reflections, and the interplay of multiple materials under dramatic lighting.

Both models handled this subject competently. Seedream V4.5 produced slightly more refined wood textures and more convincing marble surfaces. GLM Image's output was commercial-quality but occasionally rendered materials with a slightly more uniform appearance. For product photography without text requirements, Seedream's slight edge in material rendering matters.

Complex scenes with multiple subjects, cultural details, and varied lighting test a model's ability to maintain coherence across the entire frame while respecting cultural authenticity. The tea ceremony requires convincing human figures, accurate traditional elements, and atmospheric lighting.

Both models demonstrated familiarity with East Asian aesthetics, unsurprising given their origins. Seedream V4.5 produced more photorealistic results with better human figure consistency. GLM Image occasionally showed stronger coherence in traditional details and text elements (like calligraphy scrolls) when present. The quality difference was subtle but favored Seedream for pure photography.

The pricing models fundamentally differ. Seedream's flat rate covers all resolutions from 1K through 4K—your cost is predictable regardless of output size. GLM Image's per-megapixel pricing means costs scale with resolution, making 4K output roughly 10x more expensive than Seedream.

For workflows requiring high-resolution output—print production, large format displays, or archival quality—Seedream's flat pricing represents dramatic savings. For standard web-resolution images where text accuracy matters more than resolution, GLM Image's ~25% premium at 1MP may be worth paying for its typography strength.