Head-to-head comparison

GPT Image 1.5 vs. Nano Banana Pro

Compare shared capability tests, arena scores with documented retrieval dates, task-specific image pricing, and verified specifications. Research benchmarks, preference arenas, and our n = 1 samples remain separate.

shared result series: 76
shared sample prompts: 4
latest arena retrieval: 2026-08-26

First image modelSecond image model

Specifications and cost

General specifications and task-specific pricing

A model can have one price for generating new images and another for editing. Prices therefore remain tied to the corresponding arena configuration.

Specifications and pricing for GPT Image 1.5 and Nano Banana Pro
Attribute	GPT Image 1.5	Nano Banana Pro
Provider	OpenAI	Google
Released	December 2025	November 2025
Access	API, Web app	API, Web app
Lifecycle	Marked as deprecated by OpenAI Status source	No separate lifecycle notice
Weights	Proprietary	Proprietary
Parameters	Not published	Not published
Maximum output	1,536 × 1,024 pixels	4K
Arena configuration	High	Gemini 3 Pro Image
Text-to-image price	$133 per 1,000 images	$134 per 1,000 images
Editing price	$133 per 1,000 images	$134 per 1,000 images
Technical source	Model sourceVerified 2026-08-15	Model sourceVerified 2026-08-15

GPT Image 1.5Nano Banana Pro

Text to Image ArenaUSD per 1,000 images at 1,024 × 1,024 pixels

GPT Image 1.5$133

Nano Banana Pro$134

Image Editing ArenaUSD per 1,000 images at 1,024 × 1,024 pixels

GPT Image 1.5$133

Nano Banana Pro$134

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Prompt adherence and specialist tests

Shared capability benchmarks

Every matchup includes the same four Gradually sample tasks. For each task, one archived first output from every model is ranked in three differently ordered, model-blind passes. The published 0-100 value normalizes the mean rank. It must still be read as an n = 1 sample per model. This pair also shares 60 results from published research benchmarks.

GPT Image 1.5Nano Banana Pro

Gradually sample test: Typography and layoutMean of three blind ranks across all 28 first outputs, n = 1 each

GPT Image 1.533.3 / 100

Nano Banana Pro93.8 / 100

Gradually sample test: Product photographyMean of three blind ranks across all 28 first outputs, n = 1 each

GPT Image 1.537 / 100

Nano Banana Pro82.7 / 100

Gradually sample test: Character and detailMean of three blind ranks across all 28 first outputs, n = 1 each

GPT Image 1.585.2 / 100

Nano Banana Pro21 / 100

Gradually sample test: InfographicMean of three blind ranks across all 28 first outputs, n = 1 each

GPT Image 1.549.4 / 100

Nano Banana Pro42 / 100

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Capability benchmark scores for GPT Image 1.5 and Nano Banana Pro
Benchmark	GPT Image 1.5	Nano Banana Pro
GenExam Mathematics, strict	26.5 %	Higher benchmark score55.6 %
GenExam Physics, strict	46 %	Higher benchmark score75.2 %
GenExam Chemistry, strict	39 %	Higher benchmark score60.2 %
GenExam Biology, strict	56.4 %	Higher benchmark score75.6 %
GenExam Geography, strict	60.6 %	Higher benchmark score75.8 %
GenExam Computer science, strict	36.3 %	Higher benchmark score65.7 %
GenExam Engineering, strict	44.1 %	Higher benchmark score71.2 %
GenExam Economics, strict	42.9 %	Higher benchmark score88.3 %
GenExam Music, strict	29.2 %	Higher benchmark score61.5 %
GenExam History, strict	51.2 %	Higher benchmark score97.6 %
GenExam overall, strict	43.2 %	Higher benchmark score72.7 %
GenExam Mathematics, relaxed	65.8 %	Higher benchmark score86.3 %
GenExam Physics, relaxed	85.4 %	Higher benchmark score95.1 %
GenExam Chemistry, relaxed	78.1 %	Higher benchmark score88.7 %
GenExam Biology, relaxed	91.9 %	Higher benchmark score95.9 %
GenExam Geography, relaxed	92.5 %	Higher benchmark score96.5 %
GenExam Computer science, relaxed	75.8 %	Higher benchmark score91.7 %
GenExam Engineering, relaxed	86.4 %	Higher benchmark score95.1 %
GenExam Economics, relaxed	85.5 %	Higher benchmark score97.2 %
GenExam Music, relaxed	70.8 %	Higher benchmark score91 %
GenExam History, relaxed	90.9 %	Higher benchmark score99.9 %
GenExam overall, relaxed	82.3 %	Higher benchmark score93.7 %
Qwen Image Bench quality	55.14 / 100	Higher benchmark score55.67 / 100
Qwen Image Bench aesthetics	Higher benchmark score60.88 / 100	60.26 / 100
Qwen Image Bench alignment	Higher benchmark score61.72 / 100	61.25 / 100
Qwen Image Bench real-world fidelity	53.95 / 100	Higher benchmark score54.07 / 100
Qwen Image Bench creative generation	Higher benchmark score66.35 / 100	66.23 / 100
Qwen Image Bench overall	Higher benchmark score59.65 / 100	59.45 / 100
WISE Verified overall	82.5 %	Higher benchmark score87.6 %
WISE culture	89 %	Higher benchmark score89.75 %
WISE time	69.17 %	Higher benchmark score81.67 %
WISE space	88.33 %	Higher benchmark score93.33 %
WISE biology	80 %	Higher benchmark score81.67 %
WISE physics	75.83 %	Higher benchmark score86.67 %
WISE chemistry	77.5 %	Higher benchmark score87.5 %
GRADE reasoning	54.5 / 100	Higher benchmark score77.5 / 100
GRADE consistency	82.3 / 100	Higher benchmark score89.5 / 100
GRADE readability	90.7 / 100	Higher benchmark score95.8 / 100
GRADE accuracy	16 / 100	Higher benchmark score46.2 / 100
GEBench Chinese, single-step	83.79 / 100	Higher benchmark score84.5 / 100
GEBench Chinese, multi-step	56.97 / 100	Higher benchmark score68.65 / 100
GEBench Chinese, fictional app	60.11 / 100	Higher benchmark score65.75 / 100
GEBench Chinese, real app	55.65 / 100	Higher benchmark score64.35 / 100
GEBench Chinese, grounding	53.33 / 100	Higher benchmark score64.83 / 100
GEBench Chinese, overall	63.22 / 100	Higher benchmark score69.62 / 100
GEBench English, single-step	80.8 / 100	Higher benchmark score84.32 / 100
GEBench English, multi-step	58.87 / 100	Higher benchmark score69.51 / 100
GEBench English, fictional app	Higher benchmark score63.68 / 100	46.33 / 100
GEBench English, real app	Higher benchmark score58.93 / 100	47.2 / 100
GEBench English, grounding	49.23 / 100	Higher benchmark score58.64 / 100
GEBench English, overall	Higher benchmark score63.16 / 100	61.2 / 100
GenAI-Bench overall preference	Higher benchmark score1,047 ± 5	1,021 ± 5
GenAI-Bench visual quality	975 ± 5	Higher benchmark score1,043 ± 5
Infographics factuality	985 ± 12	Higher benchmark score1,102 ± 13
General image editing	995 ± 8	Higher benchmark score1,051 ± 10
Character editing	1,025 ± 7	Higher benchmark score1,050 ± 8
Creative editing	No clear benchmark lead1,017 ± 7	1,004 ± 7
Object and environment editing	976 ± 8	Higher benchmark score1,042 ± 10
Editing with 1-3 input images	1,014 ± 9	Higher benchmark score1,056 ± 12
Stylization	996 ± 7	Higher benchmark score1,045 ± 9
Gradually sample test: Typography and layout	33.3 / 100 Mean rank: 19 (20 / 18 / 19) Five rubric scores Headline: 1.67 / 2 Subline: 1.67 / 2 Text control: 1.67 / 2 Visual brief: 1.33 / 2 Layout: 1 / 2	Higher blind-rank score93.8 / 100 Mean rank: 2.67 (5 / 1 / 2) Five rubric scores Headline: 1.67 / 2 Subline: 1.67 / 2 Text control: 1.67 / 2 Visual brief: 1.33 / 2 Layout: 1.33 / 2
Gradually sample test: Product photography	37 / 100 Mean rank: 18 (18 / 16 / 20) Five rubric scores Subject: 1.33 / 2 Time: 1 / 2 Watch details: 1.33 / 2 Photography: 1.33 / 2 Exclusions: 1.33 / 2	Higher blind-rank score82.7 / 100 Mean rank: 5.67 (7 / 8 / 2) Five rubric scores Subject: 1.33 / 2 Time: 1.33 / 2 Watch details: 1.33 / 2 Photography: 1.33 / 2 Exclusions: 1.33 / 2
Gradually sample test: Character and detail	Higher blind-rank score85.2 / 100 Mean rank: 5 (5 / 8 / 2) Five rubric scores Scene: 1.33 / 2 Wardrobe: 1.33 / 2 Anatomy: 1 / 2 Props: 1.33 / 2 Environment: 1.33 / 2	21 / 100 Mean rank: 22.33 (20 / 24 / 23) Five rubric scores Scene: 1.33 / 2 Wardrobe: 1.33 / 2 Anatomy: 1 / 2 Props: 0.33 / 2 Environment: 1 / 2
Gradually sample test: Infographic	Higher blind-rank score49.4 / 100 Mean rank: 14.67 (13 / 15 / 16) Five rubric scores Title: 1.67 / 2 Sequence: 1.67 / 2 Labels: 1 / 2 Diagram: 1.67 / 2 Clarity: 1 / 2	42 / 100 Mean rank: 16.67 (17 / 16 / 17) Five rubric scores Title: 1.67 / 2 Sequence: 1.67 / 2 Labels: 1 / 2 Diagram: 1.67 / 2 Clarity: 1 / 2
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Independent preference tests

Shared arena benchmarks

Artificial Analysis and Arena derive scores from blind comparisons. Raters see outputs for the same prompt and choose the image they prefer. Separate series cover text rendering, photorealism, portraits, art, commercial design, and image editing. Confidence intervals indicate how certain a measured lead is.

12 shared result series

GPT Image 1.5Nano Banana Pro

Text to Image ArenaBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,310 Elo

Nano Banana Pro1,298 Elo

Image Editing ArenaBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,251 Elo

Nano Banana Pro1,246 Elo

LMArena Text to Image: 3D modelingBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,215.437

Nano Banana Pro1,230.042

LMArena Text to Image: ArtBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,223.911

Nano Banana Pro1,224.748

LMArena Text to Image: CartoonBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,243.08

Nano Banana Pro1,240.574

LMArena Text to Image: Commercial designBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,240.908

Nano Banana Pro1,245.099

LMArena Text to Image: OverallBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,238.658

Nano Banana Pro1,245.593

LMArena Text to Image: PhotorealismBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,248.785

Nano Banana Pro1,260.121

LMArena Text to Image: PortraitsBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,261.416

Nano Banana Pro1,258.035

LMArena Text to Image: Text renderingBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,254.593

Nano Banana Pro1,269.198

LMArena Image Editing: Multi-image editingBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,341.507

Nano Banana Pro1,363.811

LMArena Image Editing: OverallBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better

GPT Image 1.51,370.209

Nano Banana Pro1,389.596

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Arena benchmark scores for GPT Image 1.5 and Nano Banana Pro
Benchmark	GPT Image 1.5	Nano Banana Pro	Source
Text to Image Arena	No clear lead1,310 Elo Rank 5, 95% confidence interval: ±9, 13,674 ratings	1,298 Elo Rank 7, 95% confidence interval: ±9, 13,840 ratings	Artificial AnalysisRetrieved 2026-08-26
Image Editing Arena	No clear lead1,251 Elo Rank 6, 95% confidence interval: ±7, 11,694 ratings	1,246 Elo Rank 10, 95% confidence interval: ±7, 11,029 ratings	Artificial AnalysisRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: 3D modeling	1,215.437 Rank 11, 95% confidence interval: ±6.83, 14,763 ratings	Higher score1,230.042 Rank 7, 95% confidence interval: ±7.01, 13,757 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Art	1,223.911 Rank 11, 95% confidence interval: ±6.08, 19,937 ratings	No clear lead1,224.748 Rank 10, 95% confidence interval: ±6.22, 19,671 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Cartoon	No clear lead1,243.08 Rank 10, 95% confidence interval: ±4.87, 55,661 ratings	1,240.574 Rank 11, 95% confidence interval: ±4.92, 56,045 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Commercial design	1,240.908 Rank 10, 95% confidence interval: ±4.72, 55,926 ratings	No clear lead1,245.099 Rank 9, 95% confidence interval: ±4.81, 50,186 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Overall	1,238.658 Rank 11, 95% confidence interval: ±3.36, 142,427 ratings	Higher score1,245.593 Rank 10, 95% confidence interval: ±3.37, 138,756 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Photorealism	1,248.785 Rank 11, 95% confidence interval: ±4.83, 57,631 ratings	Higher score1,260.121 Rank 7, 95% confidence interval: ±4.77, 59,290 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Portraits	No clear lead1,261.416 Rank 9, 95% confidence interval: ±5.95, 28,153 ratings	1,258.035 Rank 11, 95% confidence interval: ±5.76, 31,463 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Text rendering	1,254.593 Rank 10, 95% confidence interval: ±4.98, 51,503 ratings	Higher score1,269.198 Rank 9, 95% confidence interval: ±5.14, 46,529 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Image Editing: Multi-image editing	1,341.507 Rank 9, 95% confidence interval: ±4.04, 164,316 ratings	Higher score1,363.811 Rank 6, 95% confidence interval: ±3.91, 189,338 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Image Editing: Overall	1,370.209 Rank 13, 95% confidence interval: ±2.92, 531,138 ratings	Higher score1,389.596 Rank 8, 95% confidence interval: ±2.85, 517,418 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Visual comparison

Sample images

Our images complement preference data, but do not replace it. The prompt, request count, and selection rule match. Provider resolution, quality tier, randomness, and prompt processing remain visible limitations, so this is not a fully controlled laboratory test.

Largely standardized comparison protocol. Both models receive the same archived prompt, exactly one request, and the first result counts. Files are normalized to 1,024 × 1,024 pixels without cropping. Provider resolution, randomness, quality tier, and prompt processing can still differ. These images are a practical visual test, not a reconstruction of the arena configuration.

Character and detail

Anatomy, clothing, and spatial consistency

Prompt and settings

Create a square cinematic full-body portrait of a fictional bicycle courier waiting under a transparent umbrella at a rainy tram stop in Hamburg at blue hour. She wears a mustard raincoat, navy trousers, red sneakers, a silver helmet, and carries a teal messenger bag. Keep both hands visible, render the bicycle correctly, use realistic wet-street reflections, and include no readable brand names.

GPT Image 1.5. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID openai/gpt-image-1.5, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:17 PM. Source
Nano Banana Pro. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID google/gemini-3-pro-image, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:20 PM. Source

Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1, selection rule: first result.

Prompt SHA 256: 985a75b38642a9f0e5e0c0e0c67f1b7f67780d42bd2168fa24e9a7a7a94b0da6

GPT Image 1.5, image SHA 256: 0dff52ccd39400ac66ac8870c9ea937512ff1474688e70118688f420c38c2296

GPT Image 1.5, request SHA 256: 5199631ac6ff07633dd2fb6ab61c918c26e1e02f37e6131828072233ac04527d

Nano Banana Pro, image SHA 256: eed53dcc080d2710e6e890382f6273382a12e2c5b079b8813962bff0c92b5df7

Nano Banana Pro, request SHA 256: 12c91e972a7256b1386b22420c0c84e30b85ac6e07830eea944755e5bd9742fc

Infographic

Numbers, labels, and visual organization

Prompt and settings

Create a square German infographic titled SO FUNKTIONIERT PHOTOSYNTHESE. Show exactly four numbered steps in this order: 1 LICHT, 2 WASSER, 3 CO₂, 4 ZUCKER + SAUERSTOFF. Use a clean editorial science style with one plant cross-section, simple arrows, high contrast, legible labels, and no other text.

Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1, selection rule: first result.

Prompt SHA 256: ed65cb4e6a51e2336f8b149ad4cbb16e020f07d527ad94362e719d2dcf91d94f

GPT Image 1.5, image SHA 256: 1c9ff59c32621c8b48b002dacb0ae66487262280c7c0a5b3d6456c81b248ebe9

GPT Image 1.5, request SHA 256: 7f1efc9531f1e6bed7d61a11c637add9fd892001aea2bb2781f8d89c79a2eb03

Nano Banana Pro, image SHA 256: 4ff7d3965d18e197f00647c35d6aed5a86a376c92779ee9e748c598aebafa51d

Nano Banana Pro, request SHA 256: a69a5193f107aac4f7532f021fc4306c0907470f40f984d0b263728e292d8f1b

Product photography

Materials, reflections, and fine details

Prompt and settings

Create a square premium product photograph of a brushed titanium wristwatch standing upright on dark green marble. The watch has a cream dial, thin black hands set to 10:10, twelve distinct hour markers, a realistic crown, and a dark brown leather strap. Soft window light from the left, controlled reflections, shallow depth of field, no text, no logo, no extra objects.

GPT Image 1.5. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID openai/gpt-image-1.5, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:16 PM. Source
Nano Banana Pro. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID google/gemini-3-pro-image, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:19 PM. Source

Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1, selection rule: first result.

Prompt SHA 256: c67fd71e91304458a2feef5c91efa8677260fab0c0099a29a2c52cb579f5b2f3

GPT Image 1.5, image SHA 256: 67cfa2f324447027ceb5f82e9446d40a1395b46ce425890a74606b4d97731cf6

GPT Image 1.5, request SHA 256: c850843a298631a4076c5d2686de8e9d7223534f2b8ca53505f437862718bef9

Nano Banana Pro, image SHA 256: d50770f426cac7920c9ffdaf210db2f11cdc51a8cf0b7ef52e6cd26850b1de70

Nano Banana Pro, request SHA 256: 92d73f9638fa47ea30f0ceefdeb5eb2ca7d4a018b4b4835463bd0ea29d0495cf

Typography and layout

Legible text, hierarchy, and composition

Prompt and settings

Create a square editorial poster for an imaginary night train called MONDFALTER. Show the exact German headline MONDFALTER and the exact subline BERLIN NACH LISSABON. Use a restrained midnight-blue and warm-cream palette, one stylized moth, strong Swiss-grid typography, generous negative space, and no additional words or logos.

GPT Image 1.5. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID openai/gpt-image-1.5, generated Aug 14, 2026, 1:59 PM. Source
Nano Banana Pro. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID google/gemini-3-pro-image, generated Aug 14, 2026, 2:00 PM. Source

Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1, selection rule: first result.

Prompt SHA 256: 2e012c3d14ee5dd02203a94f394ca80a5038cdebd6032b25a8b8a221f2255419

GPT Image 1.5, image SHA 256: 6a4cec86850fd371b65274198e2bf630b3cf36a096f9fb953d4bfe17c3222ebe

GPT Image 1.5, request SHA 256: 9c3a396aecfcaae3f8a25edbe5c8c44d0d33199d7ba29efda864d2b0221c3250

Nano Banana Pro, image SHA 256: fc173de00b0df04772321167cfeabb55418d3d016081e7ebfb589c69a629b712

Nano Banana Pro, request SHA 256: d686c572b086aa9f5d019886e8182c8f41c5d35bfb43bc6b6937feccba8a73eb

How to read this comparison

An Elo score is not a verdict on creativity

A higher arena score means this specific configuration was preferred more often in blind comparisons.

Typography, character consistency, local execution, licensing, and price may matter more to your workload than overall visual appeal.

Prices cover 1,000 images at 1,024 × 1,024 pixels using settings documented by Artificial Analysis. Subscriptions and special rates are excluded.

More matchups

Compare GPT Image 1.5 and Nano Banana Pro with other important image models using the same benchmark and sample methodology.

View the complete image model comparison

GPT Image 1.5 vs. Nano Banana Pro

Change image model selection

General specifications and task-specific pricing

Shared capability benchmarks

Shared arena benchmarks

Sample images

Character and detail

Infographic

Product photography

Typography and layout

An Elo score is not a verdict on creativity

Related image model comparisons