# Virtual Staging Metrics: FLUX.1 vs. Stable Diffusion XL (SDXL)—Verdict Across 3 Settings

Parker Elliott · October 1, 2026

> An audit of FLUX.1 vs. SDXL virtual staging across 20, 30, and 50 steps finds no matched benchmarks, timing tests, quality data, or verified curve.

| Takeaway | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| The three named settings do not produce a model verdict. | The supplied record names 20, 30, and 50 solver steps, but it contains no matched FLUX.1-versus-SDXL virtual-staging benchmark, wall-clock timing comparison, or quality comparison. |
| The iteration curve is unverified. | The proposed 1.00×/1.50×/2.50× sequence belongs to the supplied framing, not a reported measurement; no source defines or tests image, prompt, composition, or quality drift as the settings change. |
| Seconds per render cannot settle the commercial question. | Across the three named settings, the decisive measure would be cost per geometry-approved listing image, yet no supplied source reports per-image monetary cost, API price, GPU cost, or total compute expenditure. |
| The comparison lacks reproducible conditions. | At 20, 30, and 50 steps, hardware, resolution, batch size, precision, scheduler, guidance scale, and seed are undisclosed; the designated primary source is arXiv:2608.27467v1, an off-topic clinical question-answering paper. |

The supplied record points to arXiv:2608.27467v1, a clinical question-answering paper, as its designated primary source—not to a FLUX.1-versus-SDXL virtual-staging benchmark. It also names 20, 30, and 50 solver steps and proposes a 1.00×/1.50×/2.50× curve. None of the supplied sources measures that curve, compares the two models at matched settings, or reports a usable-room result.

That gap makes the headline’s three-setting verdict necessarily provisional. A seconds-per-render comparison would be commercially incomplete even if it existed, because the practical test is cost per geometry-approved listing image. The record contains no per-image monetary cost, API price, GPU cost, or total compute expenditure for either model, and it does not establish that additional solver steps preserve room geometry or improve usable output.

Reproduction is blocked as well: the sources do not identify test hardware, resolution, batch size, precision, scheduler, guidance scale, or seed. The only nominally image-related source is a GPT Image 2 product page, not a comparative benchmark. Without matched evidence, the defensible verdict across the three settings is undetermined—not a claim that the proposed multipliers are real.

![Overcast suburban family room with matte plaster walls](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/virtual-staging-metrics-flux-1-vs-stable-ai-824c25ef.jpg)
Overcast suburban family room with matte plaster walls

## One Step, Unequal Work

Matched step counts are a schedule control, not a compute control. I therefore reject the inference that two checkpoints labeled “50 steps” must take similar time, preserve walls and windows equally well, or cost the same per usable staging image. The experiment must follow the complete trajectory from noise prediction to a decoded room that passes approval.

I pin the comparison to the locally runnable FLUX.1 [dev] and SDXL-base checkpoints at one fixed output size. A hosted API product or a few-step sibling checkpoint can change serving costs, kernels, or the sampling process, so each belongs in a separate experiment rather than being blended into this result.

I explain the solver mismatch before timing anything. FLUX.1 [dev] is a rectified-flow, flow-matching transformer, while SDXL-base is an epsilon-prediction latent-diffusion UNet with classifier-free guidance. They follow different noise-to-image trajectories. Equal iteration counts therefore neither equalize per-iteration work nor imply that both checkpoints reach comparable structural fidelity at the same setting.

| Fixed solver setting | Iterations created | Nominal iteration multiplier |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 20 | 20 | 1.00× |
| 30 | 30 | 1.50× |
| 50 | 50 | 2.50× |

These multipliers are arithmetic, not benchmark results. At a fixed implementation, guidance, text encoding, VAE decoding, compilation, and I/O can still change the measured wall-time ratio. I time the complete warmed pipeline at batch size 1 and report p50 and p95 latency, peak VRAM, and cold-start or compilation time separately. A denoiser-only microbenchmark omits too much of the virtual-staging path to support a cost quote.

I define geometry drift as the normalized displacement of expert-tagged wall, floor, window, and door landmarks from the source image. For each room, I report median and p95 landmark error. I track 20→30 and 30→50 changes only within the same model; crossing checkpoints would confound architecture with step count.

I call a render approved only when its structure passes drift QA and the requested furniture is present, physically plausible, and correctly placed. Seconds per raw image is not the economic denominator. The relevant result is target-GPU cost per geometry-approved room.

Absent a qualifying local target-GPU result, SDXL-base remains the conservative baseline. More nominal solver steps are not a tiebreaker: FLUX.1 [dev] earns selection only when its 30-step test lowers cost per geometry-approved room.

| Checkpoint | Required local comparison | Decision |
| --- | --- | --- |
| SDXL-base | Matched 20/30/50 settings | Conservative baseline pending qualifying evidence |
| FLUX.1 [dev] | Matched 20/30/50 settings; decisive 30-step gate | Switch only if target-GPU cost per geometry-approved room is lower |

![One Step, Unequal Work — Virtual Staging Metrics](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/virtual-staging-metrics-flux-1-vs-stable-3e2ccb4a.jpg)

## Published Anchors, Not Runtime: FLUX.1 [dev]

**FLUX.1 [dev]’s parameter count is not a runtime multiplier.** The supplied ledger does not verify a parameter count for FLUX.1 [dev]. The defensible use of published specifications is narrower: identify what each source counted, preserve its parameter convention, and determine on the target GPU whether additional model capacity converts into fewer operator interventions per approved room.

The supplied ledger does not verify published FLUX.1 operating ranges or guidance scales. Even if independently documented, those specifications could describe different models and could not substitute for a matched benchmark.

SDXL’s reference setting is no more neutral. The supplied ledger does not verify a documented SDXL-base step count or guidance scale. It also does not substantiate a Hugging Face GroupNorm-removal benchmark or its reported latency, memory, or cost effects. No implementation result in the ledger establishes a FLUX-versus-SDXL deployment advantage.

No supplied benchmark compares FLUX.1 with SDXL for virtual staging or geometry-approved output. The actionable rule is consequently conservative: default to SDXL-base, then run the 30-step FLUX.1 [dev] test on the actual target GPU. Switch only if that test lowers cost per geometry-approved room; published architecture labels cannot establish the switch by themselves.

| Evidence | Published anchor | Valid interpretation | Decision status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Claimed Black Forest Labs FLUX.1 [dev] card | Parameter count not reported in the supplied ledger | No ledger-verified model-size fact | No runtime winner follows |
| SDXL-base model specification | Parameter count not reported in the supplied ledger | No ledger-verified counting convention | No checkpoint-count comparison available |
| Comparison of published counts | Parameter ratio not reported in the supplied ledger | No verified parameter ratio | Invalid as a runtime estimate |
| Claimed Black Forest Labs FLUX.1 [dev] cards | Step range and guidance scale not reported in the supplied ledger | No verified operating range | Make the target-GPU 30-step test the switch gate |
| Claimed Black Forest Labs FLUX.1 [schnell] cards | Step range not reported in the supplied ledger | No verified low-step operating point | Not interchangeable with [dev] |
| Claimed Stability AI SDXL-base Diffusers card | Step count and guidance scale not reported in the supplied ledger | No verified reference-pipeline setting | Not a neutral cross-model benchmark default |
| Claimed Hugging Face FLUX GroupNorm-removal benchmark | No result reported in the supplied ledger | No setup-specific implementation result can be verified | No model winner established |

![Published Anchors, Not Runtime: FLUX.1 [dev] — Virtual Staging Metrics](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/virtual-staging-metrics-flux-1-vs-stable-6e89be65.jpg)

## Cost per Approved Room

The economically relevant unit is an approved room, not a rendered image. No supplied source reports per-image monetary costs, API prices, GPU prices, or total compute expenditure for SDXL-base or FLUX.1 [dev], so I would not attach an unsupported dollar value to either model. The current decision must come from matched, target-machine measurements; absent those measurements, SDXL-base remains the production baseline.

I calculate cost per approved room as C_s = (rT_s + wL_s) / P_s. Here, T_s is the p50 render time on the target GPU, r is that GPU’s price per second, L_s is expected retouch time, w is the retouch rate per second, and P_s is the room-level rate passing both geometry and staging review. Numerator costs are therefore divided by realized usability, not by submitted prompts. Setting L_s to zero gives the machine-only comparison; it is useful diagnostically but cannot represent the labor consequence of defective walls or windows.

For machine-only cost, I compute R_T = T_FLUX/T_SDXL and R_P = P_FLUX/P_SDXL at each operating point. FLUX.1 [dev] wins economically only when R_P exceeds R_T: its relative approval improvement must more than offset its relative time burden. If the ratios tie, machine cost does not decide the deployment, and SDXL-base wins the tie as the lower-risk default. Consequently, a shared “50-step” label cannot establish cost parity; it establishes neither equal GPU work nor equal approved-room output.

I include operator time as a model-specific variable rather than a generic markup. I would record L_s by correction type, especially wall and window repairs, instead of assigning every output the same labor allowance. A slower FLUX render can overcome its higher GPU seconds if measured labor falls enough; conversely, a modest approval gain can disappear under retouch. At full cost, FLUX is cheaper only when w(P_SDXL L_FLUX − P_FLUX L_SDXL) < r(P_FLUX T_SDXL − P_SDXL T_FLUX). This break-even test exposes the exact tradeoff and prevents operator assumptions from overriding runtime measurements.

I keep 20, 30, and 50 as separate operating points and reject any dominated pair: if one model-step combination costs no more while producing a higher geometry-approval rate, it is inferior. I do not average a weak step count into a stronger one or let FLUX.1 [dev]’s conditional result at one setting authorize deployment at another. The governing rule is narrow: default to SDXL-base, and switch to FLUX.1 [dev] only when a target-GPU 30-step test lowers cost per geometry-approved room. Missing, noisy, or tied evidence preserves the baseline.

| Operating point | SDXL-base | FLUX.1 [dev] | Explicit winner |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 20-step cost per approved room | C_SDXL,20 | C_FLUX,20 | Lower measured cost; SDXL on a tie |
| 30-step cost per approved room | C_SDXL,30 | C_FLUX,30 | Lower measured cost; SDXL on a tie |
| 50-step cost per approved room | C_SDXL,50 | C_FLUX,50 | Lower measured cost; SDXL on a tie |
| Overall when evidence is tied or incomplete | Production baseline | Conditional challenger | SDXL-base |

![Cost per Approved Room — Virtual Staging Metrics](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/virtual-staging-metrics-flux-1-vs-stable-5599a7ac.jpg)

## What the Data Doesn't Tell You

The decisive caveat is external validity: any future matched runs would support a conditional deployment rule, not a universal ranking of FLUX.1 [dev] and SDXL-base. Production prompts, room inventories, review standards, and hardware contention can move the balance. Retain SDXL-base unless the prescribed target-GPU comparison improves the economic result.

No matched-step observations are available in the supplied ledger, so they cannot establish how results distribute across property types, floor-plan topologies, camera positions, obstruction patterns, staging briefs, seeds, or reviewers. A benchmark can also look healthy on average while a smaller set of slow generations, structurally rejected images, or disputed approvals determines the usable-room outcome.

The room—not each render—should be treated as the independent unit. Multiple views of one property share geometry and are correlated; counting them as independent would make the comparison appear more certain than it is. A stronger evaluation would blind reviewers, pair both checkpoints on the same rooms, cluster variation by property, record every rejection reason, and inspect the distribution of cost per approved room rather than relying on mean approval yield. That reveals whether an apparent geometry-stability gain generalizes or comes from a few favorable cases.

Variance across cases is mechanistic, not simple noise. Open sightlines and uncomplicated geometry may favor stable output, while doorways, columns, recessed spaces, occluded boundaries, and unusual perspectives expose different failure modes. Prompt ambiguity, staging density, seed choice, and reviewer expectations can also change approval without changing either checkpoint. Reviewer drift is particularly hazardous: a rubric shaped around SDXL-base output could disadvantage FLUX.1 [dev], while the reverse could manufacture an opposite bias. The rubric and blind presentation order must therefore be fixed before results are examined.

Deployment conditions add further uncertainty. Batch composition, scheduler contention, memory pressure, numerical precision, and enabled kernels can move the balance while the nominal checkpoint and solver schedule remain fixed. These conditions are not grounds for assuming parity; they are grounds for requiring reproducibility on the target stack. An advantage seen only with an unavailable configuration, favorable seed selection, or review costs omitted from the accounting has not yet earned a production switch.

When the rule breaks is straightforward: if the target-GPU test does not lower cost per geometry-approved room after retries and review are included, the premium for FLUX.1 [dev] is not justified, so SDXL-base remains the default. If evidence is too small, unstable, or unrepresentative, the rule is unresolved rather than reversed: broaden the paired test while retaining SDXL-base. A later change in room mix or approval policy also requires a fresh comparison; it does not make the earlier winner permanent.

| Observed condition | Decision | Reason |
| --- | --- | --- |
| FLUX.1 [dev] lowers cost per geometry-approved room on the target GPU. | Switch to FLUX.1 [dev]. | The measured production advantage satisfies the deployment rule. |
| FLUX.1 [dev] renders faster but does not improve approval-adjusted cost. | Keep SDXL-base. | Faster rejected images do not create approved rooms. |
| The advantage appears only in curated rooms or selected seeds. | Keep SDXL-base and broaden the test. | The result has not established distributional validity. |
| Results reverse when the reviewer rubric changes. | Consider the comparison unresolved. | Approval yield is partly rubric-dependent. |
| The advantage requires a configuration unavailable in production. | Keep SDXL-base until reproduced. | Nonrepresentative performance cannot set the deployment default. |
| No target-GPU approved-room comparison exists. | Keep SDXL-base. | Matched steps alone establish neither economic nor output parity. |

![What the Data Doesn&#039;t Tell You — Virtual Staging Metrics](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/virtual-staging-metrics-flux-1-vs-stable-4612bc99.jpg)

## What Matched-Step Data Cannot Prove

The decisive defect in a matched-step table is evidentiary: it lacks the controls needed to make a speed or drift comparison admissible. The supplied ledger provides no same-hardware, same-resolution, 20/30/50-step, accepted-room head-to-head. The comparison record also omits the hardware, resolution, batch size, precision, scheduler, guidance scale, and seed needed to reproduce one. An exact speed or drift ranking would fabricate the missing ledger. Published specifications justify a local test, not a runtime winner.

The same integer seed is not paired initial noise. Rectified-flow and epsilon-diffusion latent spaces do not turn a shared seed label into the same counterfactual latent, so seed-for-seed equivalence is false by construction. I treat renders as independent samples, stratify them by room, and compare room-level distributions. That preserves the deployment unit without pretending that image-level RNG labels create counterfactual pairs.

I separate a native-production arm from a harmonized-solver arm. Native production retains each checkpoint’s deployable Euler or flow-match schedule, classifier-free guidance value, and prediction target; it estimates the pipeline as it would run. The harmonized arm aligns the solver variables that can be made comparable and labels those that cannot. Pooling the arms would let scheduler or guidance differences masquerade as architecture effects, while the native arm alone cannot isolate architecture.

I also disable—or separately label—NF4 quantization, SageAttention, torch.compile, batching, TeaCache, and every other cached or fused execution path. A timing from optimized FLUX.1 [dev] versus stock SDXL compares two systems, not two checkpoints. Runtime claims are admissible only within a declared execution stratum, with the timing basis and acceptance protocol explicit.

CLIP, DINOv2, and LPIPS gains are not structural proof. A staging image can gain semantic or perceptual similarity while a wall corner, window frame, or doorway moves. I keep those metrics subordinate to blinded expert structural QA, pair model outcomes only after aggregation by room, and estimate uncertainty with rooms as clusters. Geometry approval, not embedding distance, determines which samples enter the economic comparison.

The market record also expires. I date-stamp every GPU rate, cloud-availability entry, model revision, and license term with its source and as-of date. Research-use and commercial-use rights stay in separate fields; evaluation access does not establish commercial deployment rights. A provider, checkpoint, or terms change can invalidate a price comparison without changing either model.

These controls support a conservative rule: default to SDXL-base. Switch to FLUX.1 [dev] only when a target-GPU 30-step test lowers cost per geometry-approved room relative to SDXL-base; otherwise SDXL-base is the cost winner, and equal integer step counts cannot authorize the switch.

Before admitting a matched-step result, I run this preflight manifest:

| Gate | Required record | Failure consequence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Source and date | Named model-card provenance; same-hardware, same-resolution, matched-step accepted-room record; dated market and license snapshot | No exact or permanent ranking |
| Latent pairing | Independent FLUX.1 [dev] and SDXL-base samples grouped by room | No seed-for-seed equivalence |
| Solver and execution | Separate native and harmonized arms; every optimized or cached path labeled | No architecture or mixed-runtime attribution |
| Geometry | Expert structural QA and room-clustered uncertainty | No automatic room approval |
| Economics | Target-GPU matched-step cost per geometry-approved room | Keep SDXL-base unless FLUX.1 [dev] lowers that cost |

![What Matched-Step Data Cannot Prove — Virtual Staging Metrics](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/virtual-staging-metrics-flux-1-vs-stable-a072626a.jpg)

## Virtual-Staging Pilot Evidence Gap

The supplied ledger contains no virtual-staging pilot result. It therefore does not establish that FLUX.1 [dev] preserves geometry better or that either model converts machine time into more approved rooms per dollar.

The supplied ledger contains no preregistered Zillow Indoor Dataset pilot record. It reports no room count, seed count, render count, prompt template, scheduler, precision, output resolution, batch size, execution path, warmup count, or timing basis for the claimed comparison.

The ledger reports no reviewer count, blinding protocol, landmark tolerance, furniture-plausibility standard, or adjudication rule. It therefore cannot define a reproducible geometry-approved-room unit.

The ledger reports no approval gains, runtime premiums, or cost-parity approval rates. No numerical economic break-even claim can be made for any setting.

| Named setting | Checkpoint | p50 seconds | Drift, median/p95 | Approvals | Cost per approval | Decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 20 | SDXL-base | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Undetermined from supplied ledger |
| 20 | FLUX.1 [dev] | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Undetermined from supplied ledger |
| 30 | SDXL-base | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Undetermined from supplied ledger |
| 30 | FLUX.1 [dev] | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Undetermined from supplied ledger |
| 50 | SDXL-base | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Undetermined from supplied ledger |
| 50 | FLUX.1 [dev] | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Undetermined from supplied ledger |

Without a qualifying comparison, identical schedule labels cannot establish matching latency or cost per usable room. The operational rule therefore remains conditional: retain SDXL-base as the conservative baseline, then consider FLUX.1 [dev] only if a blinded 30-step test on the target GPU lowers measured cost per geometry-approved room. The supplied ledger does not meet that switch condition.

SDXL-base is the conservative operating baseline under the stated decision rule, not an evidence-backed winner over FLUX.1 [dev]. I treat 20, 30, and 50 steps as proposed operating points around a 30-step reference. Rights, geometry, and economics are sequential gates: a visually stronger render cannot compensate for undocumented commercial use or a higher cost per geometry-approved room. This rejects the matched-step myth by making approval-adjusted work—not the step label—the decision quantity.

## Five Rules to Choose the 20/30/50-Step Production

I pair observations by room and seed so the comparison is not distorted by an easier room mix or an unusually productive random seed. Before testing, I freeze prompts, output dimensions, runtime pr

## Frequently Asked Questions

**Are the 20-, 30-, and 50-step multipliers backed by render measurements?**

The 1.00×, 1.50×, and 2.50× multipliers are arithmetic proposals rather than benchmark results, leaving the three-setting verdict undetermined.

**Does matching FLUX.1 [dev] and SDXL-base at 50 solver steps guarantee equal runtime or structural fidelity?**

No, because matched step counts are a schedule control rather than a compute control, and the two architectures follow different noise-to-image trajectories.

**What conditions must be disclosed to reproduce the comparison?**

The record does not disclose the test hardware, resolution, batch size, precision, scheduler, guidance scale, or seed.

**Should model deployment be decided by seconds per raw image?**

No, because the economically relevant measure is target-GPU cost per geometry-approved room rather than seconds per raw image.

**What exact result permits switching from SDXL-base to FLUX.1 [dev]?**

Switch only if a matched 30-step FLUX.1 [dev] test on the target GPU lowers cost per geometry-approved room; otherwise, SDXL-base remains the conservative baseline.

**Can the designated arXiv source substantiate a virtual-staging benchmark?**

No, because arXiv:2608.27467v1 is an off-topic clinical question-answering paper rather than a FLUX.1-versus-SDXL virtual-staging benchmark.

## Quick answers

| What is the verdict for FLUX.1 versus SDXL at 20, 30, and 50 solver steps? | The defensible verdict across the three settings is undetermined because the supplied record contains no matched FLUX.1-versus-SDXL virtual-staging benchmark. |
| --- | --- |
| What do the proposed 1.00×/1.50×/2.50× multipliers represent? | They are arithmetic settings, not benchmark results. |
| Why do equal solver-step counts not establish a winner? | Matched step counts are a schedule control, not a compute control, and they neither equalize per-iteration work nor imply comparable structural fidelity. |
| What must be true before switching to FLUX.1 [dev]? | Switch only if the 30-step FLUX.1 [dev] test on the actual target GPU lowers cost per geometry-approved room. |
| What economic metric should replace seconds per raw image? | The relevant result is target-GPU cost per geometry-approved room. |

Also worth reading: **FLUX Steps vs Hybrid: Virtual Staging Price Variance 2026**: [FLUX Steps vs Hybrid: Virtual](https://lionvaplus.com/blog/flux-steps-vs-hybrid-virtual-staging-price-variance-2026.php) · **FLUX vs Diffusion: The 45-Second Metric Doesn't Tell You**: [FLUX vs Diffusion: The 45-Second](https://lionvaplus.com/blog/flux-vs-diffusion-the-45-second-metric-doesnt-tell-you.php) · **ControlNet Union for SDXL A Breakthrough in AI Product Photography with 10 Integrated Control Types**: [ControlNet Union for SDXL A](https://lionvaplus.com/blog/controlnet_union_for_sdxl_a_breakthrough_in_ai_product_photo.php)

### Related reading

- [Optimizing LoRA Fine-Tuning for Stable Diffusion A Practical Guide to Enhancing E-commerce Product Image Generation](https://lionvaplus.com/blog/optimizing_lora_fine_tuning_for_stable_diffusion_a_practical.php)
- [Virtual Staging Model Training: Choose 100 for Cleaner Testing](https://lionvaplus.com/blog/virtual-staging-model-training-choose-100-for-cleaner-testing.php)
- [Faster virtual staging renders: Latent Consistency (LCM) 2s vs 178s on A100](https://lionvaplus.com/blog/faster-virtual-staging-renders-latent-consistency-lcm-2s-vs-178s-on-a100.php)
- [Virtual Home Staging: $3.50 Instant Option vs $39 Luxury Table](https://lionvaplus.com/blog/virtual-home-staging-350-instant-option-vs-39-luxury-table.php)
- [Virtual Staging Vacant Listings: 4 Steps vs 30 Steps Volume Wins](https://lionvaplus.com/blog/virtual-staging-vacant-listings-4-steps-vs-30-steps-volume-wins.php)
- [AI Virtual Staging vs. Physical: What the Data Really Shows](https://lionvaplus.com/blog/ai-virtual-staging-vs-physical-what-the-data-really-shows.php)

### Latest

- [Virtual Staging Model Training: Choose 100 for Cleaner Testing](https://lionvaplus.com/blog/virtual-staging-model-training-choose-100-for-cleaner-testing.php)
- [Faster virtual staging renders: Latent Consistency (LCM) 2s vs 178s on A100](https://lionvaplus.com/blog/faster-virtual-staging-renders-latent-consistency-lcm-2s-vs-178s-on-a100.php)
- [White Background Product Photos: Stable Diffusion XL (SDXL) 30-Step vs 4-Step](https://lionvaplus.com/blog/white-background-product-photos-stable-diffusion-xl-sdxl-30-step-vs-4-step.php)

Canonical: https://lionvaplus.com/blog/virtual-staging-metrics-flux1-vs-stable-diffusion-xl-sdxlverdict-across-3-settings.php
Markdown: https://lionvaplus.com/blog/virtual-staging-metrics-flux1-vs-stable-diffusion-xl-sdxlverdict-across-3-settings.php/index.md