Flux Ultra 1.1 vs Grok Imagine
Attractive and approachable dating app photography — see how these models compare with real AI-generated outputs.
Full comparisonCompare Models (select 4)
Great dating profile photos balance attractiveness with approachability: natural skin texture, flattering light, believable backgrounds, and expressions that feel warm—not staged. On Influencer Studio, Flux Ultra 1.1 and Grok Imagine both generate photorealistic images, but they differ in how they handle detail, consistency, and iteration speed for dating-app-ready results.
This comparison focuses on the most common dating profile needs: clean headshots, casual lifestyle photos, subtle “best version of you” polish, and quick A/B testing across outfits and locations—while keeping images realistic enough to avoid the uncanny, over-retouched look that can hurt trust.
Dating Profile Photo — Side-by-Side Results
Prompt
"A candid dating-profile-style photo of an attractive, approachable woman (mid-20s to early-30s) with shoulder-length wavy brown hair, minimal makeup, wearing a simple white tee and light-wash jeans, holding a phone at arm’s length for a casual selfie while looking near the camera with a warm, genuine smile. She’s walking through a leafy city park path with soft golden-hour natural light, slightly wind-tousled hair, and a relaxed “just out for a walk” vibe—framed like a real Hinge/Bumble profile pic, not posed or editorial. Subtle background blur, realistic phone-camera perspective, natural skin texture and candid expression."
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Flux Ultra 1.1 | Grok Imagine |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Black Forest Labs | xAI |
| Subcategories | text-to-image | text-to-image, image-to-image |
| 1080p / 2k Mode | Yes | Yes |
| 4k Mode | No | No |
| NSFW Rating | Strict | Low |
| 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 | 4 credits |
Flux Ultra 1.1 Strengths
- Exceptional photorealistic detail for close-up headshots (skin texture, hair strands, fabric realism)
- Premium-looking lighting and depth that can elevate “main photo” quality for dating profiles
- Strong clarity at higher resolutions—useful for crisp crops and platform-specific framing
- Best when you want a polished, high-end look with minimal visible artifacts
Grok Imagine Strengths
- Lower cost per image (4 credits) enables rapid iteration and A/B testing for profile variety
- Image-to-image support helps refine an existing photo style (pose, outfit, background) while staying closer to a reference
- Strong creative composition for lifestyle dating shots (coffee shop, outdoors, travel) that still read as photorealistic
- Great for generating multiple “supporting photos” with consistent vibe across a set
Verdict
If your goal is a single standout, premium-feeling dating profile hero shot—especially a sharp, flattering head-and-shoulders image—Flux Ultra 1.1 is typically the better fit thanks to its ultra-high detail and refined photorealism (at 16 credits per image).
If you want to build a full dating profile gallery quickly—testing different settings, outfits, and moods, or refining from a reference—Grok Imagine offers excellent value at 4 credits per image, plus the flexibility of image-to-image for more controlled iterations.
Frequently Asked Questions
More Comparisons by Category
Try Both Models Free
Sign up and get credits to test Flux Ultra 1.1, Grok Imagine, and all our other AI models for dating profile photo.
Join Influencer Studio Today
Start creating amazing AI-generated content for your brand