Four hundred generations later, my summary is short: Midjourney makes the images you want to look at and rarely the exact image you asked for. Whether that is a feature or a fault depends entirely on the job in front of you.
The quality gap is real
Side by side against three rivals on identical prompts, Midjourney's output was chosen as the best-looking in the large majority of comparisons by everyone I showed them to. Lighting, composition and material rendering are simply more sophisticated.
For editorial illustration, mood imagery and concept work, that means fewer generations to get something usable, which quietly offsets the subscription cost.
Control is the weak point
Ask for a specific arrangement — three objects, particular positions, a text label — and Midjourney will hand you something gorgeous that ignores half the brief. Rivals with stronger instruction-following will get closer to the literal request with uglier results.
- Style reference keeps a series visually consistent — the most useful recent addition
- Character reference works well for repeated figures, less well for exact likeness
- Text in images remains unreliable; add type in a design tool afterwards
Workflow
The web app has largely fixed the old Discord-only awkwardness, with an organised library and editing tools. It is still not a designer's environment: no layers, no precise masking, no comping. Expect to finish work elsewhere.
Rights and risk
Paid plans grant commercial usage, with extra conditions for larger companies. If your client is risk-averse about training data provenance, Adobe Firefly's indemnified model is the safer conversation, even though the pictures are less striking.
Verdict
Buy Midjourney when the picture needs to be beautiful and you have latitude on the details. Choose something more literal when the brief is exact — and budget the time to finish its images in a real design tool.