Qwen Image 2.1 Provs.Kling Image 3.0
Which one is better?
In our own test both are on par. Neither is in the arena. Neither has an API price.
Same prompt, two images
Same task, the first image of each. The task with the biggest difference is preselected.
Result for “Product photography”:Qwen Image 2.1 Pro ahead
What the rating looks at: Materials, reflections, and fine details.
“Ahead”: better in all three rating rounds. “Slightly ahead”: a higher value, but not in every round.
Test protocol of the images
Both models receive the same archived prompt in 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. The images are a practical visual test, not a reconstruction of the arena configuration.
Character and detail
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro: openrouter, aspect ratio 1:1, resolution 1K, n=1, seed=provider random, actual cost $0.046000, generated Nov 1, 2026, 8:37 PM. Source
Kling Image 3.0: fal, aspect ratio 1:1, n=1, seed=provider random, resolution 1K, estimated cost $0.028000, generated Nov 1, 2026, 9:27 PM. Source
Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1. Prompt SHA 256: 985a75b38642a9f0e5e0c0e0c67f1b7f67780d42bd2168fa24e9a7a7a94b0da6
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro image SHA 256: 5cc1b66564896a15198281314423f63a70fd897c4542588230dfe0e946beb76c
Kling Image 3.0 image SHA 256: e51647c5a3a3d73d97c28608653facb7b9eda23d79282b1698c3976bdac125ae
Infographic
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro: openrouter, aspect ratio 1:1, resolution 1K, n=1, seed=provider random, actual cost $0.046000, generated Nov 1, 2026, 8:37 PM. Source
Kling Image 3.0: fal, aspect ratio 1:1, n=1, seed=provider random, resolution 1K, estimated cost $0.028000, generated Nov 1, 2026, 9:28 PM. Source
Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1. Prompt SHA 256: ed65cb4e6a51e2336f8b149ad4cbb16e020f07d527ad94362e719d2dcf91d94f
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro image SHA 256: f1eee1f8f0d3355879d5c91b7ae006a95b0511a37f7382b8f6241cb22b3959a0
Kling Image 3.0 image SHA 256: 16ee26741483019f5338cf223adcf68418096f114519dd20a70ca4f45296f2c9
Product photography
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro: openrouter, aspect ratio 1:1, resolution 1K, n=1, seed=provider random, actual cost $0.046000, generated Nov 1, 2026, 8:36 PM. Source
Kling Image 3.0: fal, aspect ratio 1:1, n=1, seed=provider random, resolution 1K, estimated cost $0.028000, generated Nov 1, 2026, 9:27 PM. Source
Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1. Prompt SHA 256: c67fd71e91304458a2feef5c91efa8677260fab0c0099a29a2c52cb579f5b2f3
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro image SHA 256: 08d93301c324d132b3f5df149f95d57d725c068e6f15b193521f1eb253a1f176
Kling Image 3.0 image SHA 256: 4062a91ec9e68ed4f34b40656ead541684762678a7fdd8c9fccc390956a4df9d
Typography and layout
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro: openrouter, aspect ratio 1:1, resolution 1K, n=1, seed=provider random, actual cost $0.046000, generated Nov 1, 2026, 8:36 PM. Source
Kling Image 3.0: fal, aspect ratio 1:1, n=1, seed=provider random, resolution 1K, estimated cost $0.028000, generated Nov 1, 2026, 9:26 PM. Source
Protocol gradually-image-comparison-v1. Prompt SHA 256: 2e012c3d14ee5dd02203a94f394ca80a5038cdebd6032b25a8b8a221f2255419
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro image SHA 256: 31be32c6b34f27d2ff60eae3979c211ba8c2e0296595ec13e62f6f249c967058
Kling Image 3.0 image SHA 256: c25f0bccf4f51fe53d0bbefa56e3d2111ffb850458afed364ee7c534408801f0
The numbers at a glance
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro
not in the arena
Kling Image 3.0
not in the arena
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro
Rank 45 of 74
Kling Image 3.0
Rank 58 of 74
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro
no API price
Kling Image 3.0
no API price
Ranks among the 22 image models with an arena rating and the 74 with a GraduallyBench run; prices compared with 28 models with an API price.
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro
- Subscription
- n/a No plan in Germany names exactly this model.
- Via API
- No API price known. Access: API.
- Weights
- unknown.
Kling Image 3.0
- Subscription
- n/a No plan in Germany names exactly this model.
- Via API
- No API price known. Access: API.
- Weights
- unknown.
Subscriptions only count plans that name exactly this model. Subscription prices include VAT, API prices are in dollars.
GraduallyBench from Nov 1, 2026 · Subscription database from Sep 29, 2026 (34 days old)
All data side by side
The better value is bold. For ratings only when the gap is clear.
| Kennzahl | Qwen Image 2.1 Pro | Kling Image 3.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Ratings | ||
| Arena ratingfrom votes by users, higher is better | n/a | n/a |
| Arena rank | n/a | n/a |
| Arena votesmore votes, a safer rating | n/a | n/a |
| GraduallyBenchour own rating, 0 to 100 | 52 | 29 |
| GraduallyBench by task | ||
| Typography and layoutLegible text, hierarchy, and composition | 29 | 27 |
| Product photographyMaterials, reflections, and fine details | 87 | 39 |
| Character and detailAnatomy, clothing, and spatial consistency | 67 | 22 |
| InfographicNumbers, labels, and visual organization | 26 | 27 |
| API price | ||
| Per imagelower is better | n/a | n/a |
| 100 images | n/a | n/a |
| Profile | ||
| Released | n/a | Feb 5, 2026 |
| Weightsopen means: runs locally | unknown | unknown |
| Access | API | API |
| Parameters | not published | not published |
| Largest output | 2K | 2K |
| Plans in Germanynaming exactly this model | n/a | n/a |
API prices for one image at 1,024 × 1,024 pixels according to Artificial Analysis.
Sources: Qwen Image 2.1 Pro model source (verified Nov 1, 2026) · Kling Image 3.0 model source (verified Nov 1, 2026)
Arena ratings by category
From blind votes on LMArena. “Ahead” means the lead is clear.
No shared arena score in the stored snapshot
The stored benchmark database contains no measurement for Qwen Image 2.1 Pro and Kling Image 3.0 from the same arena and category. Older model versions are not used as substitutes.
Compare another matchup
More matchups
Related image model comparisons
Compare Qwen Image 2.1 Pro and Kling Image 3.0 with other important image models.