GPT Image 2 vs GPT Image 1.5: Does It Preserve Logos Better?

What those official sources do not provide is the specific evidence needed for the claim: a reproducible comparison where GPT Image 2 and GPT Image 1.5 are tested on the same logo-preservation tasks, with the same source assets, prompts, and scoring criteria .

The GPT Image 1.5 prompting guide should also be read carefully. One visible example includes constraints such as “No trademarks,” “No watermarks,” and “No logos,” which is not evidence that the model can reliably preserve an existing commercial logo during edits .

Why the GPT Image 2 evidence is not strong enough

The GPT Image 2 sources in this set are mostly third-party pages, and they do not establish a stable, official benchmark. One third-party “facts vs rumors” post says GPT Image 2 appears to be in testing and is not officially public as a named OpenAI model . Other third-party pages discuss GPT Image 2 as a launched or reviewed model, present prompt examples, or frame comparisons around leaked LM Arena information .

Those pages may be useful leads for further investigation, but they are not enough to verify the specific production claim that GPT Image 2 preserves logos and branded systems more consistently than GPT Image 1.5.

What GPT Image 1.5 claims actually add

There are third-party claims that GPT Image 1.5 preserves original image elements during edits, including details such as faces, logos, and lighting . Those claims are relevant if you are evaluating GPT Image 1.5 for brand-editing workflows.

They still do not prove that GPT Image 2 is superior. To prove that, the evidence would need to show both models tested under the same conditions, with outputs judged against the same logo and brand-identity criteria.

How to test logo preservation before using either model in production

If logo accuracy matters, run a repeatable side-by-side test instead of relying on isolated examples. Use the same source files, the same prompt wording, the same edit instructions, and the same number of generations for each model. Then review the outputs against concrete brand requirements:

• logo geometry and icon shape
• wordmark spelling and letterform accuracy
• exact placement, scale, and spacing
• brand color consistency
• typography and hierarchy
• packaging, UI, or campaign-layout preservation
• consistency across repeated edits and variations
• unwanted redesigns, added marks, missing elements, or altered text

A useful test should include easy cases and failure-prone cases: small logos, angled packaging, dense UI layouts, low-contrast marks, repeated edits, and scenes where the model may be tempted to “improve” the design instead of preserving it.

Separate logo fidelity from logo permission

Even if an AI image model can reproduce or edit a logo accurately, that does not automatically mean the use is permitted. OpenAI’s brand guidance says its logo should be used only when it directly relates to OpenAI services and not without permission or outside OpenAI’s terms . For any brand asset, accuracy and rights clearance are separate checks.

Bottom line

Do not state as fact that GPT Image 2 preserves logos or branded visual identity better than GPT Image 1.5. The defensible conclusion is narrower: the claim remains unverified because the official OpenAI sources cited here do not provide a controlled GPT Image 2 vs GPT Image 1.5 logo-preservation benchmark .