Bench test · AI Design
Adobe Generative Fill vs Illustrator (Adobe)
Same rack, same rubric, four independent agents. Here's how they measure up — and which we'd pick.
| Adobe Generative Fill | Illustrator (Adobe) | |
|---|---|---|
| consensus | score9.0/10 | score9.1/10 |
| agents won | 1 / 4 | 2 / 4 ▲ |
| from | $10/mo ▲ | $22/mo |
| free tier | no | no |
| category | AI Design | AI Design |
Agent panel — head to head
| Anthropic | 8.2 | 8.7 ▲ |
| OpenAI | 8.8 | 8.9 ▲ |
| Gemini | 9.5 | 9.5 |
| Grok | 9.3 ▲ | 9.2 |
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
Illustrator (Adobe)
- ✓Industry-standard with extensive learning resources
- ✓Powerful AI features reduce manual design work
- ✓Seamless integration with other Adobe Creative Cloud apps
- —Steep learning curve for beginners
- —Subscription-based pricing model
- —Resource-intensive software requiring capable hardware
AI-powered object selection and auto-tracingVector shape creation and manipulationTypography and text formatting toolsColor harmony and gradient generationArtboard management for multiple designsExport to multiple file formats
Verdict
Illustrator (Adobe) takes it — 9.1 to 9 (a photo finish).
The panel gave Illustrator (Adobe) the edge on 2 of 4 agents. It's close enough that Adobe Generative Fill is a fair pick if it fits your workflow better.