Skip to main content

image model comparison

GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst vs Nano Banana 2.1

GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst and Nano Banana 2.1 are both current image models, from OpenAI and Google. On Arena Text-to-Image, GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst scores 1409 Elo and Nano Banana 2.1 1325 Elo (Arena, measured November 4, 2026).

Higher Arena Text-to-Image
GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst1409 Elo against 1325 Elo
Newer release
GPT Image 2.6 SunburstNov 2026 against Oct 2026

Data verified November 6, 2026 · Dataset 2026-11-06

Share this

Side by side

GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst and Nano Banana 2.1, line by line

Prices in effect today, compared at the same tier wherever both list one. The better value in each row is highlighted.

FactGPT Image 2.6 SunburstNano Banana 2.1
Price
Price per imageNot listed$0.0336 (1K)
Price per 1M input tokens$5Not listed
Independent benchmarks
Arena Text-to-Image1409 Elo (#2 of 10) (better)1325 Elo (#6 of 10)
Arena Image Edit1476 Elo (#3 of 9) (better)1427 Elo (#6 of 9)
Specs
ProviderOpenAIGoogle
Release dateNovember 4, 2026October 6, 2026
AccessAPI onlyAPI only
Context windowNot reportedNot reported
Max outputNot reportedNot reported
Inputtext, imagetext, image, video
Outputimageimage, text

Scores:Arena · 2026-11-06

Open both in the interactive comparison

Charts

Against every current image model

Where GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst and Nano Banana 2.1 land among the current models of their task, on every independent benchmark, on price and on context.

Where each stands

On Arena Text-to-Image, GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst ranks #2 and Nano Banana 2.1 #6 of 10 current models. Each bar is the share of current models it beats: on score, price and context.

GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst and Nano Banana 2.1 among the current image models, one row per benchmark, price and context window.

Independent benchmarks

Arena Text-to-Image

GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst:#2of 10

1,409 Elo · ahead of 89%

Nano Banana 2.1:#6of 10

1,325 Elo · ahead of 44%

Arena Image Edit

GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst:#3of 9

1,476 Elo · ahead of 75%

Nano Banana 2.1:#6of 9

1,427 Elo · ahead of 38%

Price and context

Price per image

GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst: Not listed

Nano Banana 2.1:#2of 5

$0.0336 · cheaper than 50%

Quality against price

Arena Text-to-Image · measured November 4, 2026

Nano Banana 2.1 scores 1,325 at $0.0336 (price per image). The line joins the current models no other beats on both price and Arena Text-to-Image score; hover any point to name it.

Quality against priceArena Text-to-Image score against price for 5 image models, GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst and Nano Banana 2.1 marked.9501,0001,0501,1001,1501,2001,2501,3001,350$0.030$0.10MOST ATTRACTIVE QUADRANTMedian price $0.034Median 1,246Price per image, log scaleArena Text-to-Image (Elo)Nano Banana 2.1
Quality against price: the data
Arena Text-to-Image score against price for 5 image models, GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst and Nano Banana 2.1 marked.
ModelProviderPrice per imageArena Text-to-Image (Elo)
Nano Banana 2.1Google$0.0341,325
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite ImageGoogle$0.0341,249
Gemini 3 Pro ImageGoogle$0.131,246
grok-imagine-imagexAI$0.0201,169
FLUX1.1 [pro]Black Forest Labs$0.0401,016

Cost

What each costs

Example workloads at each provider's listed rates, then every other rate either one lists. The cheaper figure in each row is highlighted.

Workload or rateGPT Image 2.6 SunburstNano Banana 2.1
Example workloads
1,000 imagesNot listed$33.60 (1K)
Other listed rates
1M input tokens, cached$1.25Not listed
1M input tokens, image input$8Not listed
1M output tokens, image output$30$30

Your own bill will differ. These figures use list prices and example workloads. The AI Model Cost Audit reviews your real usage, shortlists models that score as well for each task for less, and estimates the savings.

Launch price $100, regular price $150

Book the cost audit

Verdict

When to choose each

GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst

Where it leads

  • Higher Arena Text-to-Image score, 1409 Elo vs 1325 Elo
  • Higher Arena Image Edit score, 1476 Elo vs 1427 Elo
  • A cached-input rate, $1.25 per 1M tokens

Best for

  • Detailed compositions, brand-consistent edits and animated GIFs where quality matters most

Watch out for

  • Arena's first ratings put it below GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst: 1409 against 1427 for generation and 1476 against 1517 for editing, on fewer than 4,000 votes so far
  • OpenAI's pricing page lists no batch rate for 2.6 yet, while GPT Image 2.5 costs half in batch

Nano Banana 2.1

Where it leads

  • Accepts video input
  • Also outputs text

Best for

  • High-volume product, marketing and social imagery where cost per image matters
  • Iterative editing that must keep characters and objects consistent across turns

Watch out for

  • Google prices output by image tokens; the per-image figures are Google's own equivalents and batch is half price

From benchmark to production

Building on GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst or Nano Banana 2.1?

Public scores rarely hold on your own data. We test both models on your real tasks, then build the agent or pipeline around the one that wins.

AI Model Cost AuditLaunch price $100, regular price $150What the audit includes

FAQ

GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst vs Nano Banana 2.1 FAQ

Do GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst and Nano Banana 2.1 discount cached input?

GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst lists a cached-input rate of $1.25 per 1M tokens, 75% below its standard input rate. No cached-input rate is listed for Nano Banana 2.1.

Which scores higher on independent benchmarks, GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst or Nano Banana 2.1?

GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst leads on Arena Text-to-Image, 1409 Elo to 1325 Elo; GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst leads on Arena Image Edit, 1476 Elo to 1427 Elo. Scores are independent evaluations, not either vendor's launch figures.

How do GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst and Nano Banana 2.1 differ in features?

GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst takes text and image input; Nano Banana 2.1 takes text, image and video. GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst produces image; Nano Banana 2.1 produces image and text.

Production evaluation

Choosing between GPT Image 2.6 Sunburst and Nano Banana 2.1?

Public benchmarks narrow the shortlist. We run both on your own tasks, data and cost limits, then build the routing and review controls to run the winner in production.

  • A head-to-head evaluation on your real workload
  • Routing between models by cost and difficulty