Choosing GPT Image 2, Nano Banana, or Z-Image

Start with the job, not a leaderboard

The most useful image model is the one whose verified workflow matches the work in front of you. A model that accepts references is not automatically better for a text-only concept. A premium option is not automatically the right place to begin an exploratory batch. A simple model is not a lesser choice when its smaller control surface is exactly what the brief needs.

This guide describes the controls exposed by this site's current integration. Upstream products, availability, and pricing can change, so check the model selector before submitting a task.

The current integration at a glance

| Model family | Workflows exposed here | Reference images | Controls exposed here | |---|---|---|---| | GPT Image 2 | Text to image; image to image | Yes, in image-to-image mode | Aspect ratio and 1K/2K/4K resolution, with combination limits | | Nano Banana 2 | Text to image; image to image | Yes | Aspect ratio, resolution, and supported output format | | Nano Banana Pro | Text to image; image to image | Yes | Aspect ratio, resolution, and supported output format | | Z-Image | Text to image only | No | A focused set of aspect ratios |

This table is about the site's request catalog, not a universal benchmark or a promise that every upstream feature is exposed.

Choose GPT Image 2 when its two-workflow structure fits

The integration registers separate GPT Image 2 model IDs for creating from text and editing from references. The interface selects the matching entry for the active workflow.

Its option combinations have real limits. In the current catalog, an automatic aspect ratio is restricted to 1K, and a square 1:1 image cannot be requested at 4K. The interface should disable invalid combinations before a task is created or credits are charged.

Choose this route when you want its supported text or reference workflow and the exposed resolution controls. Do not choose it merely because a model page calls it versatile; run the same brief through your shortlist and inspect the actual result.

Choose Nano Banana 2 for one model across two workflows

Nano Banana 2 uses one catalog model entry for both text-led generation and reference-image editing. That can make it convenient when a project moves repeatedly between new prompts and visual references.

The current integration exposes common aspect ratios, resolution choices, supported output formats, and a configured reference-image limit. Those are workflow facts, not evidence that it will produce the best image for every subject.

Choose it when references and repeated iteration are central to the process, then compare the output against the same prompt and references used with another candidate.

Treat Nano Banana Pro as a separate paid choice

Nano Banana Pro is a separate upstream model with its own catalog entry, reference limit, and credit cost. “Pro” should not be interpreted as an automatic instruction to use it for every request.

A sensible workflow is to establish the composition and brief with a cost you are comfortable repeating, then test a higher-cost model on selected directions. The current price shown in the interface—not an old article or screenshot—is the price to use for the decision.

This guide does not claim a universal quality advantage for Pro. That requires controlled evaluation on your own deliverable.

Choose Z-Image when text-to-image is enough

The current Z-Image integration is deliberately narrow: text-to-image only, no reference upload, and a verified set of aspect ratios. It does not expose a resolution control.

That makes the decision simple. If your task requires editing a supplied image, Z-Image is not the matching workflow here. If you are exploring prompt-led compositions and do not need reference controls, its smaller interface may be useful.

Narrow scope is a boundary, not a quality verdict.

A five-step model test

1. Write one stable brief

Keep the subject, composition, intended use, and constraints the same. Changing the prompt between models makes the comparison hard to interpret.

2. Separate required controls from preferences

Reference editing, a particular aspect ratio, or a required output scale may eliminate models before any aesthetic judgment is needed.

3. Check the displayed credit cost

Pricing can depend on model and options such as resolution. Confirm the current cost in the product before generating, especially when testing several variants.

4. Evaluate against the deliverable

For a cover, inspect hierarchy and room for type. For a portrait, inspect expression, hands, clothing, and background relationships. For reference-guided work, inspect which source details should remain and which should change.

5. Record model, settings, and source

Keep provenance with every shortlisted image. It makes a series reproducible and prevents a result from being attributed to the wrong model later.

What about monalisa-1?

monalisa-1 is not part of this production comparison because it is not available. It cannot be selected or billed, and its specifications remain TBA.

The studio's art-first direction may eventually become another meaningful choice. Until a real model is released and tested, choose among the available third-party models using the workflow, current cost, and evidence in your own outputs.