Flux Ultra 1.1 vs Z-Image Turbo
Hyperrealistic renders indistinguishable from photographs — see how these models compare with real AI-generated outputs.
Full comparisonCompare Models (select 4)
For photorealistic content in Influencer Studio, the difference between a “good-looking render” and an image that reads as a real photograph usually comes down to micro-detail, natural lighting, accurate textures, and believable skin and lens behavior. Flux Ultra 1.1 and Z-Image Turbo both generate images from text prompts, but they’re optimized for different priorities.
Below is a focused comparison on hyperrealistic output: how well each model holds up under scrutiny (faces, hands, materials, reflections), how consistent it is across variations, and when speed or cost outweighs the last 10% of realism.
Photorealistic — Side-by-Side Results
Prompt
"Hyperrealistic photorealistic DSLR-quality image of a 20s woman with shoulder-length wavy dark brown hair, minimal makeup and a few natural skin blemishes, wearing a loose gray hoodie and black leggings, holding her phone slightly above eye level for a casual front-camera selfie while glancing near the lens with a half-smile. She’s in a small sunlit kitchen with a messy counter (coffee mug, cereal box, keys), mid-pour of oat milk into iced coffee, candid “morning routine” vibe like an Instagram story. Natural window lighting with soft shadows, realistic indoor color cast, sharp skin texture and true-to-life detail."
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Flux Ultra 1.1 | Z-Image Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Black Forest Labs | Tongyi Lab (Alibaba) |
| 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 | 8 credits |
Flux Ultra 1.1 Strengths
- Stronger “camera-real” look with higher perceived detail and cleaner textures (skin, hair, fabric, product surfaces)
- More believable lighting and depth cues, helping images feel like real photos rather than CGI (natural shadows, specular highlights)
- Better at close-up portraits and product hero shots where imperfections and micro-contrast can break realism
- Premium finish that tends to require fewer retries to reach a polished, photorealistic result
Z-Image Turbo Strengths
- Much faster turnaround for generating many photorealistic candidates quickly (useful for ideation and A/B testing concepts)
- Lower cost per image (8 credits) makes it efficient for high-volume workflows and iteration
- Image-to-image support helps preserve composition/pose while pushing toward a more realistic finish
- LoRA support enables style/subject tuning for more consistent “brand look” or recurring character/product details
Verdict
If your goal is hyperrealistic images that can pass as photographs—especially portraits, skincare/beauty, fashion details, or product shots—Flux Ultra 1.1 is the safer pick. Its premium rendering and micro-detail tend to deliver a more convincing photographic finish with fewer visible artifacts.
If you need speed, volume, and cost efficiency—and you’re comfortable trading some peak realism for rapid iteration—Z-Image Turbo is a strong workflow model. It’s particularly compelling when paired with image-to-image and LoRA for consistency, then reserving premium generations for final selects.
Frequently Asked Questions
More Comparisons by Category
Try Both Models Free
Sign up and get credits to test Flux Ultra 1.1, Z-Image Turbo, and all our other AI models for photorealistic.
Join Influencer Studio Today
Start creating amazing AI-generated content for your brand