--- title: "Qwen Image 2.0 vs Qwen Image 2.0 Pro: Blind Test Results" canonical_url: "https://workroom.everypixel.com/models/compare/qwen-image-2-0-vs-qwen-image-2-0-pro" updated: 2026-09-22 --- # Qwen Image 2.0 vs Qwen Image 2.0 Pro Qwen Image 2.0 Pro (80) scores higher than Qwen Image 2.0 (65) on the photo-anchored quality scale, where a real photograph is 100. Both scores come from blind pairwise tests on the same 48 scenes between 21 August and 22 September 2026: 576 pairs and 1,726 judgements, each pair judged 3 times. ## Overview | | Qwen Image 2.0 | Qwen Image 2.0 Pro | |---|---|---| | Vendor | Alibaba | Alibaba | | Released | Feb 10, 2026 | Mar 3, 2026 | | License | — | — | | Input modalities | text, image | text, image | | Output modalities | image | image | | Pricing | $0.035 / img | $0.076 / img | ## Scores | Model | Score | 95% interval | Rank | Results | |---|---|---|---|---| | Qwen Image 2.0 | 64.5 | fixed rung of the scale | #3 | https://workroom.everypixel.com/models/qwen-image-2-0 | | Qwen Image 2.0 Pro | 80.1 | 68.6–93.8 | #2 | https://workroom.everypixel.com/models/qwen-image-2-0-pro | A real photograph is 100. A score above 100 is the scale's technical ceiling and does not mean parity. ## By use case | Use case | Qwen Image 2.0 | Qwen Image 2.0 Pro | |---|---|---| | Fashion and beauty | 69 | 67 | | Food and beverage | 46 | 62 | | Interior | 104 | 115 | | Layout and typography | 14 | 51 | | People and lifestyle | 15 | 57 | | Product and e-commerce | 87 | 88 | | Social marketing | 71 | 96 | | Street and architecture | 73 | 82 | *Category positions come from 6 scenes each — a tendency, not a measurement. A real photograph is 100 on every ruler.* ## Judged head to head Qwen Image 2.0 and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro were also compared with each other directly. The verdict above still comes from the scale. Qwen Image 2.0 Pro was preferred over Qwen Image 2.0 in 47% of blind comparisons. - Gap (Bradley–Terry): −0.45 [−0.72, −0.21] - Preference: 24.8% of blind comparisons preferred Qwen Image 2.0 (wins over all judgements, believability only, vote share) | Question | Qwen Image 2.0 preferred | Equal | Qwen Image 2.0 Pro preferred | |---|---|---|---| | Prompt adherence | 78 | 235 | 119 | | Believability | 107 | 122 | 203 | | Aesthetics | 93 | 67 | 272 | 432 blind comparisons, each pair shown 3 times ## Links - Study: https://research.everypixel.com/anchor-ladder/ - Votes (CSV, 106 KB, CC BY 4.0): https://workroom.everypixel.com/datasets/anchor-comparison-v3/votes.csv - Results (JSON, 5 KB, CC BY 4.0): https://workroom.everypixel.com/datasets/anchor-comparison-v3/results.json - Scenes and prompts (CSV, 30 KB, CC BY 4.0): https://workroom.everypixel.com/datasets/anchor-comparison-v3/scenes.csv - README (MD, 2 KB, CC BY 4.0): https://workroom.everypixel.com/datasets/anchor-comparison-v3/README.md - Images (ZIP, 128 MB, All rights reserved — verification only): https://wr.everypixel.com/ghost-research/geo-benchmarks/datasets/anchor-comparison-v3-images.zip - Votes (CSV, 111 KB, CC BY 4.0): https://workroom.everypixel.com/datasets/qwen-image-2-0-pro-ladder/votes.csv - Results (JSON, 4 KB, CC BY 4.0): https://workroom.everypixel.com/datasets/qwen-image-2-0-pro-ladder/results.json - Scenes and prompts (CSV, 44 KB, CC BY 4.0): https://workroom.everypixel.com/datasets/qwen-image-2-0-pro-ladder/scenes.csv - README (MD, 2 KB, CC BY 4.0): https://workroom.everypixel.com/datasets/qwen-image-2-0-pro-ladder/README.md - Images (ZIP, 634 MB, All rights reserved — verification only): https://wr.everypixel.com/ghost-research/geo-benchmarks/datasets/qwen-image-2-0-pro-evaluation-images.zip - All scenes: https://workroom.everypixel.com/models/qwen-image-2-0/dataset --- HTML version: https://workroom.everypixel.com/models/compare/qwen-image-2-0-vs-qwen-image-2-0-pro Last modified: 2026-09-22