FLUX.3

GPAI Provider: Black Forest Labs

Metadata

Model URL: https://bfl.ai/blog/flux-3
When was this model published? 2026-07-16
Is this a new or a fine-tuned model? New model
When was the Public Summary last updated? 2026-08-01
When did we evaluate the Public Summary? 2026-08-04
Where did we find the Public Summary? We found this document linked on this page. An archived version can be found here.

Results of Evaluation

Section Transparency Usefulness General
Clarity Completeness Consistency Correctness Accessibility Comprehension Transparency Usefulness
Document 90.91 100.0 100.0 80.0 70.0 88.89 92.59 78.95
General information 37.21 70.51 100.0 100.0 N/A 100.0 66.89 100.0
Public Data Sources 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0
Private Data Sources 100.0 36.36 100.0 100.0 N/A 100.0 61.9 100.0
Scraped/Crawled Data N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 N/A N/A 100.0 N/A
User Data 0.0 42.31 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 45.45 75.0
Synthetic/Other Data 75.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N/A 50.0 89.47 50.0
Data Processing 100.0 16.67 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 75.0 21.74
Sum 72.36 65.72 100.0 99.28 92.5 50.66 76.16 59.42
Grades BC

Evaluation Notes

If you update your public summary, please let us know so that we can update the evaluation and scores. We also welcome suggestions on improvements to this page, e.g. see FAQ section.

The training data summary for FLUX.3 adheres to the structure of the template and provides various pieces of useful information for rightsholders. However, its descriptions still fail to meet the standards of the template at times, resulting in the primary loss of points. Notable fields in which further detail could be provided are the description of the linguistic characteristics of the overall training data, the description of other relevant characteristics of the overall training data, and the General description of non-publicly known private datasets obtained from third parties. The summary scores 76.16% with a grade of B for transparency, and 59.42% with a grade of C for usefulness.

Suggested Improvements
The following are the suggested improvements based on using our our methodology where the public summary had issues related to the specified metric. The severity represents the extent of the issue, with low indicating aspects that could be fixable, and high representing missing information or requiring major changes.

  • Document
    • M1 The document and the information should be simple and clear low
    • M4 The information must be correct and accurate low
    • M5 The document and information must be accessible for stakeholders medium
    • M6 The document and information must be comprehensible for stakeholders low
  • General information
    • M1 The document and the information should be simple and clear high
    • M2 The document and information must be filled in completely medium
  • Private Data Sources
    • M2 The document and information must be filled in completely high
  • User Data
    • M1 The document and the information should be simple and clear high
    • M2 The document and information must be filled in completely high
    • M6 The document and information must be comprehensible for stakeholders medium
  • Synthetic/Other Data
    • M1 The document and the information should be simple and clear low
    • M6 The document and information must be comprehensible for stakeholders medium
  • Data Processing
    • M2 The document and information must be filled in completely high
    • M6 The document and information must be comprehensible for stakeholders high
  • Sum
    • M1 The document and the information should be simple and clear medium
    • M2 The document and information must be filled in completely medium
    • M4 The information must be correct and accurate low
    • M5 The document and information must be accessible for stakeholders low
    • M6 The document and information must be comprehensible for stakeholders medium