Head-to-head comparison

GPT Image 2 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: 21
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 2 and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
Attribute	GPT Image 2	Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
Provider	OpenAI	Alibaba
Released	April 2026	April 2026
Access	API, Web app	API
Lifecycle	No separate lifecycle notice	No separate lifecycle notice
Weights	Proprietary	Proprietary
Parameters	Not published	Not published
Maximum output	4K	2,048 × 2,048 pixels
Arena configuration	High	2026-04-22
Text-to-image price	$211 per 1,000 images	$75 per 1,000 images
Editing price	$211 per 1,000 images	$75 per 1,000 images
Technical source	Model sourceVerified 2026-08-15	Model sourceVerified 2026-08-15

GPT Image 2Qwen Image 2.0 Pro

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

GPT Image 2$211

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro$75

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

GPT Image 2$211

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro$75

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 6 results from published research benchmarks.

GPT Image 2Qwen Image 2.0 Pro

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

GPT Image 235.8 / 100

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro43.2 / 100

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

GPT Image 295.1 / 100

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro42 / 100

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

GPT Image 276.6 / 100

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro76.6 / 100

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

GPT Image 276.6 / 100

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro53.1 / 100

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Capability benchmark scores for GPT Image 2 and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
Benchmark	GPT Image 2	Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
Qwen Image Bench quality	Higher benchmark score58.65 / 100	54.39 / 100
Qwen Image Bench aesthetics	Higher benchmark score67.53 / 100	58.67 / 100
Qwen Image Bench alignment	Higher benchmark score65.85 / 100	59.28 / 100
Qwen Image Bench real-world fidelity	Higher benchmark score57.38 / 100	51.83 / 100
Qwen Image Bench creative generation	Higher benchmark score75.23 / 100	64.94 / 100
Qwen Image Bench overall	Higher benchmark score64.69 / 100	57.84 / 100
Gradually sample test: Typography and layout	35.8 / 100 Mean rank: 18.33 (22 / 11 / 22) Five rubric scores Headline: 1.67 / 2 Subline: 1.67 / 2 Text control: 1.67 / 2 Visual brief: 1 / 2 Layout: 1.33 / 2	Higher blind-rank score43.2 / 100 Mean rank: 16.33 (16 / 12 / 21) Five rubric scores Headline: 1.67 / 2 Subline: 1.67 / 2 Text control: 1.67 / 2 Visual brief: 1.33 / 2 Layout: 1 / 2
Gradually sample test: Product photography	Higher blind-rank score95.1 / 100 Mean rank: 2.33 (3 / 3 / 1) Five rubric scores Subject: 1.33 / 2 Time: 1.33 / 2 Watch details: 1.33 / 2 Photography: 1.33 / 2 Exclusions: 1.33 / 2	42 / 100 Mean rank: 16.67 (16 / 18 / 16) 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	Tie76.6 / 100 Mean rank: 7.33 (12 / 9 / 1) Five rubric scores Scene: 1.33 / 2 Wardrobe: 1.33 / 2 Anatomy: 1.33 / 2 Props: 1 / 2 Environment: 1 / 2	Tie76.6 / 100 Mean rank: 7.33 (3 / 15 / 4) Five rubric scores Scene: 1.33 / 2 Wardrobe: 1.33 / 2 Anatomy: 1 / 2 Props: 1 / 2 Environment: 1.33 / 2
Gradually sample test: Infographic	Higher blind-rank score76.6 / 100 Mean rank: 7.33 (10 / 5 / 7) Five rubric scores Title: 1.67 / 2 Sequence: 1.67 / 2 Labels: 1.67 / 2 Diagram: 1.33 / 2 Clarity: 1.67 / 2	53.1 / 100 Mean rank: 13.67 (12 / 20 / 9) 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 2Qwen Image 2.0 Pro

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

GPT Image 21,371 Elo

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,237 Elo

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

GPT Image 21,257 Elo

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,164 Elo

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

GPT Image 21,360.375

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,198.224

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

GPT Image 21,370.438

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,176.336

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

GPT Image 21,396.031

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,191.217

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

GPT Image 21,389.556

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,186.961

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

GPT Image 21,380.469

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,191.147

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

GPT Image 21,378.291

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,204.823

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

GPT Image 21,428.866

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,215.441

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

GPT Image 21,424.046

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,200.737

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

GPT Image 21,462.796

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,303.632

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Arena benchmark scores for GPT Image 2 and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
Benchmark	GPT Image 2	Qwen Image 2.0 Pro	Source
Text to Image Arena	Higher score1,371 Elo Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±10, 14,328 ratings	1,237 Elo Rank 13, 95% confidence interval: ±10, 5,363 ratings	Artificial AnalysisRetrieved 2026-08-26
Image Editing Arena	Higher score1,257 Elo Rank 5, 95% confidence interval: ±6, 18,356 ratings	1,164 Elo Rank 36, 95% confidence interval: ±8, 6,142 ratings	Artificial AnalysisRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: 3D modeling	Higher score1,360.375 Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±9.77, 6,635 ratings	1,198.224 Rank 14, 95% confidence interval: ±16.48, 1,113 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Art	Higher score1,370.438 Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±8.48, 8,762 ratings	1,176.336 Rank 22, 95% confidence interval: ±13.33, 1,741 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Cartoon	Higher score1,396.031 Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±6.88, 28,210 ratings	1,191.217 Rank 17, 95% confidence interval: ±9.16, 4,474 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Commercial design	Higher score1,389.556 Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±6.61, 27,138 ratings	1,186.961 Rank 16, 95% confidence interval: ±8.87, 4,500 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Overall	Higher score1,380.469 Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±4.62, 69,194 ratings	1,191.147 Rank 15, 95% confidence interval: ±6.06, 12,026 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Photorealism	Higher score1,378.291 Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±6.62, 26,719 ratings	1,204.823 Rank 14, 95% confidence interval: ±8.86, 4,863 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Portraits	Higher score1,428.866 Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±8.77, 13,521 ratings	1,215.441 Rank 15, 95% confidence interval: ±11.96, 2,309 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Text to Image: Text rendering	Higher score1,424.046 Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±7.09, 26,226 ratings	1,200.737 Rank 17, 95% confidence interval: ±9.31, 4,045 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-08-26
LMArena Image Editing: Overall	Higher score1,462.796 Rank 1, 95% confidence interval: ±3.69, 199,275 ratings	1,303.632 Rank 19, 95% confidence interval: ±4.82, 50,798 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 2. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID openai/gpt-image-2, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:13 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, image SHA 256: 82f6e2369ab4fb6efb0ef48feeff0d14f1d6087c64c35113a983456f0f0879ac

GPT Image 2, request SHA 256: db4ca97dc43effd578430b77f8ca559c7dd5cbe60e663ba9ecc2e89a33480b0d

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, image SHA 256: 05f19da3e2d0eedb17d098c1b21abf8c83c663afa59083f0ce7a67a948e8a263

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro, request SHA 256: daf42522a323804ef9196abe1efabac816b4b442bec00a91f90b9fdd8d57bae6

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.

GPT Image 2. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID openai/gpt-image-2, generated Aug 14, 2026, 12:14 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, image SHA 256: 6c15466e258e2b14a8e862959cb6a67b4f7a23896ea5d42c5a5618d848847711

GPT Image 2, request SHA 256: ed741d3d120188b9286d3576e7dcd3ace9dd7792978d4d5426022f32ed7ca381

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

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.

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

Prompt SHA 256: c67fd71e91304458a2feef5c91efa8677260fab0c0099a29a2c52cb579f5b2f3

GPT Image 2, image SHA 256: 471c71b30618afb1a8a67ab8363308d67f99c65ef6740ca72417806d06d3c346

GPT Image 2, request SHA 256: 7b27ff2c9b64529a36bebf2d572c3448f26e68f3e9d1ac6a3f2b5ead8698f60f

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

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. Provider Together, 1024x1024, n=1, seed=provider random, provider default steps, model ID openai/gpt-image-2, generated Aug 14, 2026, 1:59 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, image SHA 256: 434cf9939b9be2a2c2711e13d027c9438c47038bb32229ceeaf405d2e89d2afc

GPT Image 2, request SHA 256: 473a774dfe9f9b7bb597e9e8b63af4e770b6bc4e7f8bc90682636db3516e7353

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

Compare GPT Image 2 and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro with other important image models using the same benchmark and sample methodology.

View the complete image model comparison

GPT Image 2 vs. Qwen Image 2.0 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