Skip to main content

Head-to-head comparison

GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst vs. Qwen Image 2.0 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
15
shared sample prompts
4
latest arena retrieval
2026-09-22

Change image model selection

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 2.5 Sunburst and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
AttributeGPT Image 2.5 SunburstQwen Image 2.0 Pro
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba
ReleasedSeptember 8, 2026April 2026
AccessAPIAPI
LifecycleNo separate lifecycle noticeNo separate lifecycle notice
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
ParametersNot publishedNot published
Maximum output3,840 × 2,160 pixels2,048 × 2,048 pixels
Arena configurationSunburst2026-04-22
Text-to-image price$210.7 per 1,000 images$75 per 1,000 images
Editing price$210.7 per 1,000 images$75 per 1,000 images
Technical sourceModel sourceVerified 2026-09-24Model sourceVerified 2026-08-15
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstQwen Image 2.0 Pro
Text to Image ArenaUSD per 1,000 images at 1,024 × 1,024 pixels
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst$210.7
Qwen Image 2.0 ProLower price$75
Image Editing ArenaUSD per 1,000 images at 1,024 × 1,024 pixels
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst$210.7
Qwen Image 2.0 ProLower price$75

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Prompt adherence and specialist tests

Shared capability benchmarks

Both checkpoints completed the same four Gradually sample tasks. For each task, 30 archived first outputs are 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. No exact shared result from the integrated research benchmarks is available for this pair.

GPT Image 2.5 SunburstQwen Image 2.0 Pro
Gradually sample test: Typography and layoutMean of three blind ranks across all 30 first outputs, n = 1 each
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst21.8 / 100
Qwen Image 2.0 ProHigher blind-rank score40.2 / 100
Gradually sample test: Product photographyMean of three blind ranks across all 30 first outputs, n = 1 each
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstHigher blind-rank score97.7 / 100
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro57.5 / 100
Gradually sample test: Character and detailMean of three blind ranks across all 30 first outputs, n = 1 each
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst25.3 / 100
Qwen Image 2.0 ProHigher blind-rank score48.3 / 100
Gradually sample test: InfographicMean of three blind ranks across all 30 first outputs, n = 1 each
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstHigher blind-rank score98.9 / 100
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro44.8 / 100

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Capability benchmark scores for GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
BenchmarkGPT Image 2.5 SunburstQwen Image 2.0 Pro
Gradually sample test: Typography and layout
21.8 / 100
Mean rank: 23.67 (22 / 25 / 24)
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 score40.2 / 100
Mean rank: 18.33 (15 / 20 / 20)
Five rubric scores
Headline: 1.67 / 2
Subline: 1.67 / 2
Text control: 1.67 / 2
Visual brief: 1.67 / 2
Layout: 1 / 2
Gradually sample test: Product photography
Higher blind-rank score97.7 / 100
Mean rank: 1.67 (2 / 1 / 2)
Five rubric scores
Subject: 1.67 / 2
Time: 1.67 / 2
Watch details: 1.67 / 2
Photography: 1.67 / 2
Exclusions: 1.67 / 2
57.5 / 100
Mean rank: 13.33 (18 / 6 / 16)
Five rubric scores
Subject: 1.67 / 2
Time: 1.67 / 2
Watch details: 1.33 / 2
Photography: 1.67 / 2
Exclusions: 1.67 / 2
Gradually sample test: Character and detail
25.3 / 100
Mean rank: 22.67 (26 / 26 / 16)
Five rubric scores
Scene: 1 / 2
Wardrobe: 1 / 2
Anatomy: 1 / 2
Props: 1 / 2
Environment: 1 / 2
Higher blind-rank score48.3 / 100
Mean rank: 16 (19 / 14 / 15)
Five rubric scores
Scene: 1 / 2
Wardrobe: 1 / 2
Anatomy: 1 / 2
Props: 1 / 2
Environment: 1 / 2
Gradually sample test: Infographic
Higher blind-rank score98.9 / 100
Mean rank: 1.33 (1 / 2 / 1)
Five rubric scores
Title: 1.67 / 2
Sequence: 1.67 / 2
Labels: 1.67 / 2
Diagram: 1.67 / 2
Clarity: 1.67 / 2
44.8 / 100
Mean rank: 17 (16 / 20 / 15)
Five rubric scores
Title: 1 / 2
Sequence: 1.67 / 2
Labels: 1.67 / 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.

11 shared result series
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstQwen Image 2.0 Pro
Text to Image ArenaBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstHigher score1,197 Elo
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,030 Elo
Image Editing ArenaBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstHigher score1,180 Elo
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,016 Elo
LMArena Text to Image: 3D modelingBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstHigher score1,404.714
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,198.919
LMArena Text to Image: ArtBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstHigher score1,390.12
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,175.631
LMArena Text to Image: CartoonBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstHigher score1,439.841
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,191.069
LMArena Text to Image: Commercial designBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstHigher score1,418.818
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,187.349
LMArena Text to Image: OverallBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstHigher score1,420.715
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,191.159
LMArena Text to Image: PhotorealismBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstHigher score1,423.225
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,205.655
LMArena Text to Image: PortraitsBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstHigher score1,450.124
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,215.999
LMArena Text to Image: Text renderingBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstHigher score1,481.069
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,201.077
LMArena Image Editing: OverallBlind preference from the same prompt, higher is better
GPT Image 2.5 SunburstHigher score1,520.443
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,303.653

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Arena benchmark scores for GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
BenchmarkGPT Image 2.5 SunburstQwen Image 2.0 ProSource
Text to Image Arena
Higher score1,197 Elo
Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±9, 13,401 ratings
1,030 Elo
Rank 19, 95% confidence interval: ±9, 5,988 ratings
Artificial AnalysisRetrieved 2026-09-22
Image Editing Arena
Higher score1,180 Elo
Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±8, 16,958 ratings
1,016 Elo
Rank 31, 95% confidence interval: ±9, 3,572 ratings
Artificial AnalysisRetrieved 2026-09-22
LMArena Text to Image: 3D modeling
Higher score1,404.714
Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±41.7, 273 ratings
1,198.919
Rank 17, 95% confidence interval: ±16.58, 1,106 ratings
LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Text to Image: Art
Higher score1,390.12
Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±31.11, 406 ratings
1,175.631
Rank 25, 95% confidence interval: ±13.32, 1,743 ratings
LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Text to Image: Cartoon
Higher score1,439.841
Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±20.54, 1,198 ratings
1,191.069
Rank 19, 95% confidence interval: ±9.16, 4,471 ratings
LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Text to Image: Commercial design
Higher score1,418.818
Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±20.95, 1,104 ratings
1,187.349
Rank 19, 95% confidence interval: ±8.86, 4,497 ratings
LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Text to Image: Overall
Higher score1,420.715
Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±13.08, 3,149 ratings
1,191.159
Rank 18, 95% confidence interval: ±6.06, 12,005 ratings
LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Text to Image: Photorealism
Higher score1,423.225
Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±20.32, 1,168 ratings
1,205.655
Rank 17, 95% confidence interval: ±8.88, 4,846 ratings
LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Text to Image: Portraits
Higher score1,450.124
Rank 2, 95% confidence interval: ±31.56, 509 ratings
1,215.999
Rank 17, 95% confidence interval: ±11.96, 2,303 ratings
LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Text to Image: Text rendering
Higher score1,481.069
Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±22.66, 1,125 ratings
1,201.077
Rank 20, 95% confidence interval: ±9.31, 4,044 ratings
LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Image Editing: Overall
Higher score1,520.443
Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±9.21, 6,704 ratings
1,303.653
Rank 21, 95% confidence interval: ±4.82, 50,820 ratings
LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19

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

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, Character and detail
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, Character and detail
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
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 2.5 Sunburst. Provider OpenAI, 1024x1024, quality high, n=1, model ID gpt-image-2.5-sunburst, generated Sep 28, 2026, 8:51 PM. Source
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID Qwen/Qwen-Image-2.0-Pro, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:21 PM. Source

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

Prompt SHA 256: 985a75b38642a9f0e5e0c0e0c67f1b7f67780d42bd2168fa24e9a7a7a94b0da6

GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, image SHA 256: 2bcd5e2358dbf9e2f11336ebf6c4a4a15e0a9a10261dd74378d40985ac68ec6d

GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, request SHA 256: fe156d4933f8a7af7d109e003d79ef3da6654c470fa167c69553d3265dd84ded

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, image SHA 256: 05f19da3e2d0eedb17d098c1b21abf8c83c663afa59083f0ce7a67a948e8a263

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, request SHA 256: daf42522a323804ef9196abe1efabac816b4b442bec00a91f90b9fdd8d57bae6

Infographic

Numbers, labels, and visual organization

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, Infographic
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, Infographic
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
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.

GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst. Provider OpenAI, 1024x1024, quality high, n=1, model ID gpt-image-2.5-sunburst, generated Sep 28, 2026, 8:52 PM. Source
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID Qwen/Qwen-Image-2.0-Pro, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:22 PM. Source

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

Prompt SHA 256: ed65cb4e6a51e2336f8b149ad4cbb16e020f07d527ad94362e719d2dcf91d94f

GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, image SHA 256: 7dab94e5588be73aefe08f23f9d56ced4e2ddb2b29f754db41b057025cf34847

GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, request SHA 256: b67e094e50474dd45f816d34ef9e0935a70b24829bc4fc60a4a24d563eba2977

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, image SHA 256: 003fbe859de5df62a4f49e3d590c00f5036e208149d81226d1835871fd1e0410

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, request SHA 256: 8afcf2a2661e733ceed209087c6253139db63559bce51a1887e280855549ad48

Product photography

Materials, reflections, and fine details

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, Product photography
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, Product photography
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
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 2.5 Sunburst. Provider OpenAI, 1024x1024, quality high, n=1, model ID gpt-image-2.5-sunburst, generated Sep 28, 2026, 8:51 PM. Source
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID Qwen/Qwen-Image-2.0-Pro, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:21 PM. Source

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

Prompt SHA 256: c67fd71e91304458a2feef5c91efa8677260fab0c0099a29a2c52cb579f5b2f3

GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, image SHA 256: c648276704e06f7925f2325e8ffff0d9d0a9bd6c5bb4866785abac92ce97ff9a

GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, request SHA 256: fa7b392f661da048749d5294aedea9e6c918a83cbe482cdc70a7f8df267bafec

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, image SHA 256: b811a440655cae766c039dfc8f9efb1756be5dce63ef22cd95deb1fe7dab6a3a

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, request SHA 256: e24ea060a669087c82f55e22cc5b361c6b23fb3f61b55d73b67406147d2a570f

Typography and layout

Legible text, hierarchy, and composition

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, Typography and layout
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, Typography and layout
GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
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 2.5 Sunburst. Provider OpenAI, 1024x1024, quality high, n=1, model ID gpt-image-2.5-sunburst, generated Sep 28, 2026, 8:50 PM. Source
Qwen Image 2.0 Pro. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID Qwen/Qwen-Image-2.0-Pro, generated Aug 14, 2026, 2:00 PM. Source

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

Prompt SHA 256: 2e012c3d14ee5dd02203a94f394ca80a5038cdebd6032b25a8b8a221f2255419

GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, image SHA 256: fd6a3767ba8253869cb94d5346f025541dac924c2190df2c37b366b182986cf8

GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, request SHA 256: 6fb8eeab411c5e7b600849741e4fa8408361e00074dc89e91e67e9d9e898ef81

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, image SHA 256: 4eb4915afa71f6a8c76979dcecadd70beabd3869f11ca092a725fd7b6c87b4f2

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, request SHA 256: dc02f3c7a699f6ddcd1b8a7e82170adae1563e75665d9c3f93965c6a00917ee4

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

Related image model comparisons

Compare GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro with other important image models under the same evidence rules. Each page shows only exact shared measurements and samples.

View the complete image model comparison