AI Image Generators Tested

Product photography is undergoing a paradigm shift: away from the physical set, towards generative AI. But which model delivers the most professional results with the same inputs?

To find out, we used AMALYTIX to create precise prompts for seven typical e-commerce scenarios for seven products from the Amazon range. These include Application Images, Infographic Images, Lifestyle Images, Macro Images, Rendering Images, Scale Size Images, and Seasonal Gift Images.

These prompts were then tested on a range of modern AI image models. Our comparison includes: Flux.2 [Flex], Flux.2 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash Image, Gemini 3 Pro, and GPT Image 1.

In this article, we compare the results and show which AI delivers the best product images.

Evaluation Criteria

For a structured and comprehensible analysis of the AI models, we have developed a precise evaluation system. Each image is independently assessed by two people from our marketing team based on three central criteria. A score from 1 (poor) to 5 (very good) is awarded in each category:

1. Overall Impression: This category assesses the visual impact, image composition, and overall quality of the result.

2. Realism: This evaluates the credibility and authenticity of the generated elements. Assessment criteria include natural proportions, correct object structures, and coherent lighting.

3. Prompt Accuracy: This category measures the precise implementation of the instructions. The decisive factor is the content’s consistency with the prompt.

Afterwards, the team discusses the individual ratings to create a final overall assessment.

Application Images

Select a product:

backpack

camera

candle

garlicpress

magnesium

microphone

chocolate

Application images show a product in its typical use environment. They help Amazon customers to imagine its use in everyday life and to better understand the practical benefits of the item.

In this category, clear performance differences emerged. The performance of Gemini 3 Pro was particularly convincing: the generated images appeared authentic and placed the product in a credible, contextually appropriate environment. For example, the model depicted the backpack and camera in realistic scenes, with the interactions of the people shown with the product appearing mostly flawless and natural.

In contrast, the Flux models had visible difficulties with implementation. Unnatural body postures, anatomical errors, or incorrect depictions of the product itself occurred more frequently. Flux 2 Pro also often interpreted the core of the prompt imprecisely, leading to irrelevant or unusable results.

Particularly detailed products like the backpack pushed the generators to their limits. Likewise, the realistic representation of the fire bowl in the correct size and texture proved to be a difficult requirement to implement.

Conclusion: Creating high-quality application images remains a complex challenge for AI generators. Gemini 3 Pro delivered the most consistent and convincing results here, while other models showed weaknesses in depicting human-product interactions and in prompt understanding.

Infographic Images

Select a product:

backpack

camera

candle

garlicpress

magnesium

microphone

chocolate

Infographics are intended to visually and concisely summarize product features. Through text, icons, and a clear structure, complex information is made quickly understandable for customers.

The creation of infographics, especially text integration, proved to be a major challenge in the test. Here, a clear dominance of Gemini 3 Pro was evident, which was by far the best at implementing the instructions for infographics.

A general problem area remained realism. Only Gemini 3 Pro and Flux.2 Pro delivered reasonably convincing results here. At the other end of the spectrum was GPT Image 1, whose results were perceived as particularly artificial.

A particular discrepancy was shown by Flux.2 Pro: although the model produced comparatively realistic images, it often missed the actual task and ignored the requirement to create an infographic.

Conclusion: The automated creation of infographics remains the Achilles’ heel of AI image generators. However, the text implementation of Gemini 3 Pro was remarkable here and delivered by far the best results – for this model, the infographic scenario was even the highest-rated category. Other models like Flux.2 Pro deliver realistic images but fail at the actual task. For practical results, manual post-processing is currently unavoidable for most models.

Lifestyle Images

Select a product:

backpack

camera

candle

garlicpress

magnesium

microphone

chocolate

Lifestyle images show products in an appealing, everyday environment. They aim to build an emotional connection with the customer and convey the brand message by presenting the item in a relevant context.

Overall, this category was among the better-rated scenarios. The models showed a high accuracy in implementing the prompts and understood the desired scenarios. The biggest and most consistent weakness, however, was in realism. The depicted scenes often looked artificial and inauthentic.

The clear winner here was also Gemini 3 Pro. It was the only model to consistently deliver convincing results and achieved high scores in all three evaluation criteria. It was best at integrating the products into a credible and appealing environment.

The general weakness in realism was evident in the other models. GPT Image 1 stood out negatively here, with its images looking the most unnatural. The other generators also had difficulties creating authentic and photorealistic scenes, even when the content of the prompt was correctly implemented.

Conclusion: The AI models are already good at creating the content for lifestyle images. However, the decisive challenge remains the photorealistic representation that gives the images the necessary authenticity. In this respect, Gemini 3 Pro clearly stands out from the competition.

Macro Images

Select a product:

backpack

camera

candle

garlicpress

magnesium

microphone

chocolate

Macro images are extreme close-ups that serve to highlight the finest product details, material texture, and quality features. They are crucial for demonstrating the value and workmanship of an item.

This scenario was one of the worst-rated in the entire test and revealed a key weakness of AI generators: the realistic depiction of details. The generated close-ups consistently looked unnatural and artificial, which was reflected in the lowest realism score of all categories.

Here too, Gemini 3 Pro was the clear winner. The model was particularly convincing due to its high prompt accuracy and most reliably implemented the technically precise instructions for macro shots.

The significant problems with realism were evident in all other models. GPT Image 1, with its extremely artificial-looking images, delivered the weakest results in this regard. Flux 2 Pro, in turn, had the greatest difficulty understanding the instructions and often failed at the basic task of creating a macro shot.

Conclusion: Creating credible macro images is one of the biggest hurdles for current AI models. The ability to generate realistic textures and details up close is still severely underdeveloped. Gemini 3 Pro delivers by far the best results, while most other models are still unusable for this specific requirement.

Rendering Images

Select a product:

backpack

camera

candle

garlicpress

magnesium

microphone

chocolate

Renderings are computer-generated, photorealistic representations of products. They are often used for studio shots with perfect lighting, for displaying prototypes, or for visualizing products in a neutral, controlled environment.

Similar to other technically demanding scenarios, creating convincing renderings was a major challenge for most AI models. While the prompts were mostly understood in terms of content, the results often lacked the crucial photorealism for renderings.

The surprising frontrunner in this category was Gemini 2.5 Flash Image, which performed slightly better than Gemini 3 Pro. This was the only scenario in the test where this model took the lead. Both Gemini models were the only generators to deliver convincing and realistic results suitable for professional purposes.

The other models – Flux.2 Pro, Flux.2 [Flex], and GPT Image 1 – could not keep up. Their results suffered from a very low realism score, making them unusable for creating high-quality renderings. The generated images looked flat, artificial, and did not meet the expectations of a photorealistic representation.

Conclusion: The ability to generate high-quality renderings separates the wheat from the chaff. Only the two Gemini models are capable of delivering the necessary realism that is essential for this type of product image. The other tested models fail at this technical requirement.

Scale/Size Images

Select a product:

backpack

camera

candle

garlicpress

magnesium

microphone

chocolate

Scale & Size Images, i.e., size comparison images, have the task of making the dimensions of a product understandable by showing it in relation to a known object. This helps customers to realistically estimate the size and avoid wrong purchases.

This scenario proved to be the most demanding task in the entire test and achieved the worst overall ratings. The models showed fundamental difficulties in depicting correct proportions, size ratios, and a credible perspective, which was reflected in the lowest realism score of all categories.

Once again, Gemini 3 Pro was the undisputed winner. It was the only model that could convincingly master this technically complex requirement and realistically depict the size ratios.

All other models failed at this task. A particularly negative example was GPT Image 1, which completely failed in the realism category. Its attempts to represent scales were consistently rated as wrong and unnatural. Interestingly, most models understood the instruction in the prompt but could not correctly implement the physical laws of proportion and perspective.

Conclusion: The correct representation of size ratios is currently one of the biggest weaknesses of AI image generators. Adhering to the instruction alone is not enough; the models fail at a credible visual implementation. For this task, only Gemini 3 Pro is currently a serious option.

Seasonal Gift Images

Select a product:

backpack

camera

candle

garlicpress

magnesium

microphone

chocolate

Seasonal images position a product as an ideal gift for a specific occasion like Christmas, Easter, or Valentine’s Day. They create an emotional, thematically appropriate atmosphere to increase the incentive to buy.

This scenario was among the better-rated in the test. The models reliably implemented the instructions for seasonal themes, but the results were often not convincing in their final aesthetics and visual impact.

Here too, Gemini 3 Pro dominated with the best overall performance. The model shone with precise prompt implementation and was the only one capable of consistently generating high-quality and appealing seasonal images.

In the mid-range, Flux.2 Pro showed a balanced performance and delivered images with good realism and overall impression, even if the prompts were not always precisely implemented. The biggest deficit was with GPT 1 Image, whose images were aesthetically the least appealing. Even when the instructions were followed correctly, the overall visual impression was the weakest here.

Conclusion: Most models are good at creating thematically appropriate seasonal images in terms of content. The real challenge lies in creating an aesthetically high-quality and emotionally appealing composition. For this creative task, Gemini 3 Pro is by far the most reliable choice.

Evaluation

After seven intensive test rounds in all relevant e-commerce scenarios, a clear winner has been determined: Gemini 3 Pro. The model from Google convinced with the highest overall rating and proved to be by far the most versatile and reliable tool for creating product images.

The Overall Result

As the evaluation of the total scores shows, Gemini 3 Pro clearly stands out with an average score of 3.6. While Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers a solid result in the midfield with 2.7, the Flux models and especially GPT Image 1 (score 2.0) fall behind in a direct comparison.

The strength of Gemini 3 Pro lies above all in its consistency. The model led the field in six out of seven scenarios. While the “Seasonal Gift” scenario was rated best across all models with an average score of 2.9, complex “Macro” shots (average 2.4) represented the greatest challenge for all AI models.

The overall impression – a combination of image composition and visual impact – confirms this picture:

What is striking here, however, is that the overall winner does not necessarily lead in every niche. In the “Rendering” area, the Gemini 2.5 Flash model achieved the best individual result with a score of 3.26. In the specific combination of rendering / magnesium product, it even achieved the absolute highest score of 5.0. For users focusing on pure rendering tasks, this model can therefore be the more efficient solution.

The Technical Discrepancy: Understanding vs. Photorealism

A detailed analysis of the criteria “Prompt Accuracy” and “Realism” reveals a systematic pattern across all tested models: The AIs interpret instructions correctly in terms of content, but often fail at the photorealistic implementation.

In terms of prompt accuracy, the scores reach a high level. Gemini 3 Pro achieves a score of 4.0 here. This means: If specific elements are requested in the prompt, they are usually placed correctly by the models in terms of content.

Realism, on the other hand, is the technical bottleneck. Even for the leading model, the rating in this category drops to 3.0. For GPT Image 1, the score even drops to 1.4.

This discrepancy is the main reason for point deductions. The difficulty lies in creating an image with natural proportions, correct object structures, and coherent lighting. Regardless of the model, the scores for prompt accuracy are consistently higher than those for realism.

Weaknesses and Risks of the Models

In addition to the ratings for realism and accuracy, specific peculiarities of the other models emerged during the test run:

• Flux (Pro & Flex): The results were ambivalent. Although the models often produced aesthetically pleasing images, they suffered from a lack of consistency. The Flux.2 Pro model recorded the lowest individual score of the test in the Lifestyle / Garlicpress scenario with a score of 1.0. This range of fluctuation represents a risk. Another technical detail: Flux often generated images in the format of the input image instead of the size defined in the prompt. However, this can be manually adjusted in the task settings.

• GPT Image 1: This model is notable for a consistent soft-focus effect. Although the prompts are implemented solidly in terms of content, the artificial “soft look” appears unrealistic in the overall impression and severely limits its usability for e-commerce purposes.

Conclusion

For professional applications, Gemini 3 Pro is currently the most reliable choice. However, the test also highlights general limitations: The automated creation of infographics and the integration of text in the image still show significant potential for optimization, and photorealism still requires manual control.

The input is crucial for image quality: Detailed context information, such as through reference images or precise bullet points, is the key to precise results. For example, if we only provided the main image of a product, the models often had difficulties with the correct representation of details from other perspectives.

Overall, the results show that AI models now offer high practical value in e-commerce, but they are not yet a fully automatic solution. The technology functions most effectively as an assistance system that accelerates the creation of image variants, while the final curation and fine-tuning remain in human hands. Those who use the strengths of the models in a targeted manner and compensate for the known weaknesses – especially in realism – through post-processing can already realize significant efficiency gains today.

FAQ

Which AI is best for product images?

According to our test, Gemini 3 Pro from Google is currently the best model for creating product images. It delivered the most convincing and reliable results in almost all e-commerce scenarios, especially in technically demanding categories.

What are the biggest challenges for AI image generators?

The current models show the greatest weaknesses in creating infographics with readable text, the photorealistic representation of details (e.g., in macro shots), and the correct depiction of size ratios. The consistent representation of products from different perspectives also remains a hurdle.

Why is Gemini 3 Pro the test winner?

Gemini 3 Pro distinguished itself through high versatility and reliability. The model was convincing in creative tasks such as lifestyle images as well as in technically complex requirements such as size comparisons and detail shots. The combination of realism, aesthetics, and precise prompt understanding was superior to the competition.

What is important for good AI product images?

The decisive factor is the quality of the input. Detailed prompts that contain precise instructions (e.g., as bullet points) and the provision of reference images are the key to high-quality results. The more context the AI has, the better it can generate the desired images.