Head-to-head comparison

Reve 2.1 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: 13
shared sample prompts: 4
latest arena retrieval: 2026-09-19

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 Reve 2.1 and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
Attribute	Reve 2.1	Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
Provider	Reve	Alibaba
Released	July 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	No separate configuration named	2026-04-22
Text-to-image price	No arena entry	$75 per 1,000 images
Editing price	No arena entry	$75 per 1,000 images
Technical source	Model sourceVerified 2026-08-15	Model sourceVerified 2026-08-15

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.

Reve 2.1Qwen Image 2.0 Pro

Gradually sample test: Typography and layoutMean of three blind ranks across all 30 first outputs, n = 1 each

Reve 2.128.7 / 100

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro40.2 / 100

Gradually sample test: Product photographyMean of three blind ranks across all 30 first outputs, n = 1 each

Reve 2.171.3 / 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

Reve 2.142.5 / 100

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro48.3 / 100

Gradually sample test: InfographicMean of three blind ranks across all 30 first outputs, n = 1 each

Reve 2.197.7 / 100

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro44.8 / 100

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Capability benchmark scores for Reve 2.1 and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
Benchmark	Reve 2.1	Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
Gradually sample test: Typography and layout	28.7 / 100 Mean rank: 21.67 (24 / 19 / 22) 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 score71.3 / 100 Mean rank: 9.33 (9 / 9 / 10) 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	42.5 / 100 Mean rank: 17.67 (12 / 19 / 22) 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 score97.7 / 100 Mean rank: 1.67 (2 / 1 / 2) 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.

9 shared result series

Reve 2.1Qwen Image 2.0 Pro

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

Reve 2.11,275.821

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,198.919

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

Reve 2.11,287.418

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,175.631

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

Reve 2.11,309.645

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,191.069

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

Reve 2.11,314.478

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,187.349

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

Reve 2.11,301.093

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,191.159

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

Reve 2.11,302.395

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,205.655

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

Reve 2.11,316.198

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,215.999

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

Reve 2.11,340.578

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,201.077

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

Reve 2.11,375.308

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro1,303.653

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Arena benchmark scores for Reve 2.1 and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro
Benchmark	Reve 2.1	Qwen Image 2.0 Pro	Source
LMArena Text to Image: 3D modeling	Higher score1,275.821 Rank 5, 95% confidence interval: ±22.5, 683 ratings	1,198.919 Rank 17, 95% confidence interval: ±16.58, 1,106 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Text to Image: Art	Higher score1,287.418 Rank 6, 95% confidence interval: ±17.35, 1,101 ratings	1,175.631 Rank 25, 95% confidence interval: ±13.32, 1,743 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Text to Image: Cartoon	Higher score1,309.645 Rank 6, 95% confidence interval: ±11.34, 2,920 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 score1,314.478 Rank 5, 95% confidence interval: ±11.6, 2,723 ratings	1,187.349 Rank 19, 95% confidence interval: ±8.86, 4,497 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Text to Image: Overall	Higher score1,301.093 Rank 6, 95% confidence interval: ±7.71, 7,573 ratings	1,191.159 Rank 18, 95% confidence interval: ±6.06, 12,005 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Text to Image: Photorealism	Higher score1,302.395 Rank 6, 95% confidence interval: ±11.09, 3,027 ratings	1,205.655 Rank 17, 95% confidence interval: ±8.88, 4,846 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Text to Image: Portraits	Higher score1,316.198 Rank 6, 95% confidence interval: ±15.55, 1,465 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 score1,340.578 Rank 6, 95% confidence interval: ±12.24, 2,537 ratings	1,201.077 Rank 20, 95% confidence interval: ±9.31, 4,044 ratings	LMArenaRetrieved 2026-09-19
LMArena Image Editing: Overall	Higher score1,375.308 Rank 14, 95% confidence interval: ±6.2, 19,125 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

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.

Reve 2.1. Provider Manual import, Official Reve web app; Reve 2.1; chat creation; one request; 1:1 requested in prompt; first of two results; free plan; 2026-08-14; https://app.reve.com/model, source 4096x4096, stored 1024x1024 (Lanczos3 downscale), model ID manual export, generated Aug 14, 2026, 4:23 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

Reve 2.1, image SHA 256: 29e9f7f38ed5c63dcfaab671a49fb9f4e9f82cd24b99134b87e1c22442822126

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.

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

Prompt SHA 256: ed65cb4e6a51e2336f8b149ad4cbb16e020f07d527ad94362e719d2dcf91d94f

Reve 2.1, image SHA 256: 30d157e85d75eb2ca1f71152d27f26d378ad8ea49b899d5f350ae0cda4e2bc59

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

Reve 2.1, image SHA 256: 1f91c3cb481151fb5165194b4edea2a46e786ca80e4ec3bdd888e3ba0016c510

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.

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

Prompt SHA 256: 2e012c3d14ee5dd02203a94f394ca80a5038cdebd6032b25a8b8a221f2255419

Reve 2.1, image SHA 256: 84bcd1680fd0ae861ec66c21ab8f4cd79738bd093eb87ffe7283d9842c37cb1d

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 Reve 2.1 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

Reve 2.1 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