09/27/2026
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst vs. Flare
A few weeks ago, I compared some of the leading image generation models, including GPT 2.0, Nano Banana Pro, Meta Muse, and Seedream 5.0. Since then, GPT has released two new models, GPT 2.5 Sunburst and Flare, so I wanted to see how they compare. Both models cost exactly the same ($210.70 per 1,000 images), but they are quite different in terms of speed and what I would actually use them for. In my tests, Sunburst took around 1.5 to sometimes 2 times longer than Flare to generate an image.
For Flare, I think the biggest use case is speed. If you are building it into the backend of an app, quickly generating ideas, or going through a lot of iterations, Flare makes a lot of sense. I would also use it when I just want to test a concept without worrying too much about getting every detail right.
Sunburst feels more suited to final production work. It is slower, but I found it more precise, especially when the image/prompt has a lot of details that need to be followed correctly. It also works really well with text, so I can see it being useful for things like infographics (look at image 2 for reference).
Personally, I would choose Sunburst. I don't really need that much speed, but I do need more precision in my designs.
One thing I still don't like about GPT images is how contrasted and dark they can look. I hope this gets fixed in the next model. But they are definitely getting there. The images are becoming more realistic and slowly losing that recognizable "GPT aesthetic." You probably know what I mean. A lot of YouTube thumbnails right now have that look where you can immediately tell they were made with GPT.
For my own workflow, though, I would still stick with Nano Banana Pro. I can see myself using a hybrid workflow where I use GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst to get the precision and structure right, and then Nano Banana Pro to refine certain parts and get the final visual quality I want.
Have you tested Sunburst and Flare? What do you think?
