Bench test · ai-design
Adobe Generative Fill vs Adobe Illustrator
Same rack, same rubric, four independent agents. Here's how they measure up — and which we'd pick.
| Adobe Generative Fill | Adobe Illustrator | |
|---|---|---|
| consensus | score9.0/10 | score8.9/10 |
| agents won | 2 / 4 ▲ | 1 / 4 |
| from | Custom | Custom |
| free tier | no | no |
| category | ai-design | ai-design |
Agent panel — head to head
| Anthropic | 8.3 | 9.2 ▲ |
| OpenAI | 8.5 | 8.5 |
| Gemini | 9.6 ▲ | 9.5 |
| Grok | 9.5 ▲ | 8.5 |
Adobe Generative Fill
- ✓Saves significant editing time for complex tasks
- ✓Produces realistic, high-quality results
- ✓Intuitive interface integrated into Photoshop workflow
- —Requires Adobe Creative Cloud subscription
- —Generative credits system limits free usage
- —Results may require manual refinement for perfect output
Generative fill for selections using text promptsGenerative expand to extend canvas and backgroundsObject removal and inpaintingMultiple variation generationSeamless content blendingIntegration with Photoshop's selection tools
Adobe Illustrator
- ✓Industry-standard with extensive plugin ecosystem
- ✓Powerful AI generative tools save design time
- ✓Seamless Adobe Creative Cloud integration
- —Steep learning curve for beginners
- —Subscription-based pricing required
- —Resource-intensive on lower-end systems
Vector drawing and shape toolsGenerative Fill with AIText and typography controlsLayer and artboard managementExport to multiple formatsCloud integration and collaboration
Custom · no free tier
Try Adobe Generative Fill ▸Custom · no free tier
Try Adobe Illustrator ▸Verdict
Adobe Generative Fill takes it — 9 to 8.9 (a photo finish).
The panel gave Adobe Generative Fill the edge on 2 of 4 agents. It's close enough that Adobe Illustrator is a fair pick if it fits your workflow better.