Ideogram 4.0 is Good. Just Good.

A blind test across 240 images and 10 professional designers just dropped. Ideogram 4.0 against Gemini 3.1, Grok Imagine, and FLUX.2 Max. The results are clean. Ideogram won typography in nearly half of every blind matchup. 47.9 percent. Next closest was Gemini at 30 percent. FLUX.2 and Grok sat around 15 percent each. On the question that actually matters to designers -- would I ship this -- Ideogram scored 3.55 out of 5. Gemini got 2.84. Nobody else cleared 3. That is a real lead in text rendering. The model was trained exclusively on structured JSON caption datasets, which means it understands composition and layout differently than models trained on alt-text scraped from the web. The JSON prompting is genuinely useful for automated pipelines. You can specify bounding boxes, color palettes, object positions. It is not just better at text. It is more controllable. I tested it. It works. The text in images is readable. That has been the white whale of AI image generation for two years and Ideogram 4.0 mostly solves it. But as an overall image model, it is just good. Competitive, not dominant. On busy, highly detailed scenes with specific counts and attributes, Ideogram scored 3.42. Gemini scored 3.37. That is a statistical tie. FLUX.2 scored 3.01 and Grok 2.82, which are worse, but the gap between the top two is noise. For general image quality, you are splitting hairs between Ideogram and Gemini. For photorealism, FLUX and Reve still lead. For artistic generation, Midjourney is Midjourney. The prompting behavior is interesting. Lean prompts won across the board. Long, over-specified prompts lost. The model was trained on structured data, so it wants structure, not paragraphs. "A poster for a coffee shop. The text says Morning Blend in serif. Warm tones, natural light." That works. Adding stylistic directives and adjectives and "make it pop" language degrades the output. Where to actually use this thing: fal.ai has it at three cents per megapixel in Turbo mode. Tha