Flux Ultra 1.1 vs GPT-Image 1.5
Neon cityscapes, futuristic tech, and dystopian aesthetic — see how these models compare with real AI-generated outputs.
Full comparisonCompare Models (select 4)
Cyberpunk and sci-fi visuals live or die on atmosphere: neon spill on wet pavement, dense city layering, believable futuristic materials, and coherent tech details. In Influencer Studio, Flux Ultra 1.1 and GPT-Image 1.5 both target high-quality text-to-image generation, but they shine in different parts of the cyberpunk pipeline.
This comparison focuses on neon cityscapes, futuristic tech props, and dystopian storytelling. We’ll look at photorealism vs. prompt control, how each model handles complex scene density, and how pricing affects iteration when you’re dialing in a signature sci-fi look.
Which Model Should You Choose?
Short answer: Flux Ultra 1.1 is better for premium photoreal detail, while GPT-Image 1.5 is better for accurate prompt adherence. If you are creating cyberpunk & sci-fi, start with GPT-Image 1.5 because it costs fewer credits per output and lets you test more directions, then switch to Flux Ultra 1.1 for polished, higher-resolution final assets.
| If you need… | Choose | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Lower-cost exploration and more variants per credit | GPT-Image 1.5 | GPT-Image 1.5 costs 8 credits to start, so you can test more directions for less. |
| Polished, ready-to-ship final assets | Flux Ultra 1.1 | Flux Ultra 1.1 produces stronger final-asset polish for campaign-ready output. |
| Readable text in designs, overlays, and packaging | GPT-Image 1.5 | GPT-Image 1.5 renders labels and typography more cleanly. |
| Editing and reference-driven iteration | GPT-Image 1.5 | GPT-Image 1.5 is more flexible for editing from references or existing outputs. |
| Consistent characters and repeated campaign visuals | Either model | Either model holds character and style consistency better across outputs. |
| Cyberpunk & Sci-Fi specifically | Flux Ultra 1.1 | Flux Ultra 1.1 scores higher on realism, which matters most for cyberpunk & sci-fi. |
How They Compare, Criterion by Criterion
| Criteria | Flux Ultra 1.1 | GPT-Image 1.5 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Realism | ●●●●● | ●●●●○ | Flux Ultra 1.1 |
| Text accuracy | ●●○○○ | ●●●●○ | GPT-Image 1.5 |
| Editing flexibility | ●●○○○ | ●●●○○ | GPT-Image 1.5 |
| Cost efficiency | ●●●○○ | ●●●○○ | Tie |
| Final polish | ●●●●● | ●●●●○ | Flux Ultra 1.1 |
| Consistency | ●●●●○ | ●●●●○ | Tie |
| Best first test | ●●●○○ | ●●●○○ | GPT-Image 1.5 |
How We Compare These Models
Models compared
Flux Ultra 1.1 vs GPT-Image 1.5
Use case
Cyberpunk & Sci-Fi
Flux Ultra 1.1 — best for
premium photoreal detail
GPT-Image 1.5 — best for
accurate prompt adherence
Flux Ultra 1.1 — avoid if
You need editing, text accuracy, or low-cost iteration
GPT-Image 1.5 — avoid if
You need the lowest cost or advanced editing flexibility
Credits per image (Flux Ultra 1.1)
16 credits
Credits per image (GPT-Image 1.5)
8 credits
Last updated
June 8, 2026
What the Examples Show
Realism
Flux Ultra 1.1 tends to produce more natural skin texture, lighting, and detail in these outputs.
Text accuracy
GPT-Image 1.5 renders any labels, overlays, or typography more cleanly.
Commercial usability
Flux Ultra 1.1 is closer to a ready-to-use image asset; GPT-Image 1.5 is better for concepting.
Recommended next step
Use GPT-Image 1.5 for first-pass variants, then Flux Ultra 1.1 for final polish.
Cyberpunk & Sci-Fi — Side-by-Side Results
Prompt
"A candid phone-camera selfie of a 20s woman with shoulder-length teal-tinted hair and clear-frame glasses, wearing an oversized hoodie, bike shorts, and chunky sneakers, glancing just off-camera while holding a steaming takeaway coffee. She’s standing under a neon ramen shop awning on a rain-slick cyberpunk street with pink-blue-purple glow, holographic ads reflecting in puddles, and a few blurred pedestrians behind her like a real late-night TikTok story. Natural ambient city lighting from signage and streetlamps, slight motion blur, unpolished UGC vibe."
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Flux Ultra 1.1 | GPT-Image 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Black Forest Labs | OpenAI |
| Subcategories | text-to-image | text-to-image |
| 1080p / 2k Mode | Yes | Yes |
| 4k Mode | No | No |
| NSFW Rating | Strict | Strict |
| Aspect Ratio | 1:1, 16:9, 9:16, 3:4, 4:3, 21:9 | 1:1, 16:9, 9:16, 3:4, 4:3 |
| Starting Price | 16 credits | 8 credits |
Flux Ultra 1.1 Strengths
- Exceptional micro-detail for neon-lit environments (signage textures, rain sheen, reflections, grime and wear)
- Photorealistic rendering that sells dystopian street photography and cinematic sci-fi stills
- Premium-quality lighting and material realism for metals, glass, holographic surfaces, and wet asphalt
- Strong results when you want a “finished poster” look with minimal post-processing
GPT-Image 1.5 Strengths
- Strong prompt adherence for complex cyberpunk briefs (specific wardrobe, props, camera angles, and scene constraints)
- Versatile output across styles—can pivot between gritty dystopia, sleek futurism, and illustrative sci-fi with clear direction
- Handles detailed scenes well, especially when you need multiple elements to appear as requested (vehicles, drones, signage, street clutter)
- Flexible credit tiers (8/16/32) to support fast iteration at low cost and upscale finals when ready
Verdict
Choose Flux Ultra 1.1 when your priority is premium, photoreal cyberpunk—neon realism, rich textures, and high-impact “final frame” images at a consistent 16 credits per render.
Choose GPT-Image 1.5 when you need tighter prompt control and iterative exploration of dystopian concepts. Its tiered pricing makes it practical to draft in low, refine in medium, and reserve high for hero assets where precision and fidelity matter most.
Frequently Asked Questions
More Comparisons by Category
Try Both Models Free
Sign up and get credits to test Flux Ultra 1.1, GPT-Image 1.5, and all our other AI models for cyberpunk & sci-fi.
Join Influencer Studio Today
Start creating amazing AI-generated content for your brand