CIVITAI / Workflows

Anima Acceleration Comparison Testing Workflow

This workflow is designed for Anima acceleration comparison testing. Its main purpose is to compare different Anima generation routes, sampling stages, and acceleration settings under the same prompt, same latent size, and similar visual conditions. Instead of only showing one final image, this workflow is built to help creators understand how different sampling strategies affect image quality, speed, structure, detail, and final style. The workflow uses anima-preview.safetensors as the main Anima model, qwen_3_06b_base.safetensors as the text encoder, and qwen_image_vae.safetensors as the VAE. The latent canvas is created with EmptyLatentImagePresets at 1152 x 896, which gives a wide illustration format suitable for anime comparison tests, character previews, and visual benchmark examples. The prompt describes an anime-style fox girl in a snowy night scene holding a sign, which is a useful test prompt because it includes character identity, clothing, environment, lighting, atmosphere, and readable text. The negative prompt is also shared across the comparison routes, suppressing problems such as worst quality, low quality, blurry output, JPEG artifacts, signatures, and artist names. This keeps the comparison cleaner, because each route is tested against the same quality-control conditions. The key value of this workflow is that it does not test Anima as a single black-box output. It breaks generation into multiple sampling paths. Some routes use Anima Preview directly, while other routes apply an additional Anima RDBT-style LoRA path. The workflow includes multiple KSamplerAdvanced nodes with different start and end steps, making it possible to observe how early-stage, mid-stage, and later-stage sampling changes the final image. This is useful for understanding which part of the denoising process controls composition, which part affects details, and which route produces better speed-quality balance. The workflow also uses image concatenation nodes to place outputs side by side. This makes it easier to visually compare results instead of checking images one by one. You can compare whether a route gives better line quality, cleaner character design, stronger lighting, better color harmony, more stable text, or fewer artifacts. The workflow can also export comparison results as animated WEBP, making it useful for tutorial demonstrations, Civitai previews,