I gave 7 AI design tools the same 5 jobs on their free plans

Description and use

The author benchmarked seven AI design tools on identical prompts, scoring outputs on legibility, style, layout, and appeal. FontVibe and Leonardo led, with differences mainly in stylistic fidelity and layout compliance.

Problem

Assess how well free‑plan AI design tools generate text effects for various design jobs.

Outcome

FontVibe led with an average score of 8.8, closely followed by Leonardo at 8.7. The tools differed mainly in how faithfully they rendered requested lettering effects and adhered to layout rules. Free‑plan limits varied from 30 credits/day to 3 images/day.

Workflow

• 1. Define five design jobs with detailed prompts.
• 2. Submit identical prompts to each tool’s free plan, using default models and closest aspect ratios.
• 3. Capture the first result from each tool (or best of a batch).
• 4. Score each image on legibility, design execution, layout, and appeal using a weighted rubric.
• 5. Calculate average scores and rank tools.
• 6. Document observations per job and overall findings.

Evidence

The short version: the gap at the top is small. Leonardo finished 0.1 behind FontVibe, and on two of the five jobs it scored higher.

Source

Five jobs, from simple to hard. The difficulty is about the whole design: how much information it has to carry and how many layout rules it has to follow.

Source

The rules: Free plan features only. Default model, default settings. I only set the aspect ratio closest to the job.

Source

Every image got a score from 1 to 10 on four things. I wrote down the reason for each deduction before giving the number.

Source