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

Описание и применение

Автор сравнил семь AI‑инструментов для создания текстовых эффектов, используя одинаковые задания и оценив результаты по четырём критериям. FontVibe и Leonardo показали лучшие результаты, а различия возникли в точности выполнения стилистических требований и соблюдении правил компоновки.

Задача

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

Результат

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.

Рабочий процесс

• 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.

Доказательства

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.

Источник

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.

Источник

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

Источник

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

Источник