Nano Banana 2.1
- Context
- 131,072
- Max output
- 32,768
- Input / MTok
- See native rates
- Cached / MTok
- —
- Output / MTok
- See native rates
- Input types
- text + image + video + PDF
IMAGE GENERATION · 1K–4K / VERIFIED 2026-10-12
Nano Banana 2.1
vs Nano Banana Pro
Compare Google's efficient Nano Banana 2.1 and premium Nano Banana Pro on image pricing, output resolutions, model identifiers, context and creative workflows using primary sources.
LIVE VERIFIED FACTS
Current facts from the SXF model database.
Nano Banana Pro
- Context
- 65,536
- Max output
- 32,768
- Input / MTok
- See native rates
- Cached / MTok
- —
- Output / MTok
- See native rates
- Input types
- text + image
Facts are generated from the canonical model catalog, not copied into this comparison.Current data ↗Change ledger ↗
SPECIALIST BUYER GUIDE
What matters for visual creation.
1K and 2K image output
Google estimates Nano Banana 2.1 at $0.0336 per 1K image or $0.0504 per 2K image, versus Nano Banana Pro at $0.134 for a 1K or 2K image. Those output-only estimates exclude input and grounding costs.
4K image output
Google estimates $0.113 per generated 4K image for Nano Banana 2.1 versus $0.24 for Nano Banana Pro. Image tokens and separately billed text/thinking tokens should not be conflated.
Choose by creative workflow
Nano Banana 2.1 targets efficient conversational editing, high throughput and consistent multi-reference subjects. Nano Banana Pro targets advanced graphic design, precision creative control and complex high-fidelity compositions.
No invented quality benchmark
Neither model has an SXF verified side-by-side image quality score here. Test actual brand copy, compositing, edit consistency and typography on your own prompts.
DECISION FACTORS
What materially changes the choice.
Context capacity
Nano Banana 2.1 publishes the larger context window: 131,072 vs 65,536 tokens (2.0×).
Input modalities
Nano Banana 2.1 additionally lists PDF, video.
Direct token cost
These specialist modalities do not have a directly comparable text-token cost. Check model-specific image, video, credit and service-token pricing instead.
HOW TO DECIDE
Specifications narrow the field. Your workload decides.
Context, modalities and direct token economics are comparable from official sources. Coding quality, latency, reliability and agent success should be measured on your own acceptance tests before production routing.
Replay real tasks
Use representative prompts, files, tools and expected outputs from the workload you plan to ship.
Measure task cost
Include retries, cached tokens, long-context rules and tool charges—not only headline input price.
Track failures
Record hallucinations, tool errors, timeout behavior and human corrections alongside pass rate.
Route by task
A portfolio can outperform a one-model policy when different task classes have different cost and capability needs.
INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS
No directly comparable independent result yet.
SXF does not infer quality from specifications or compare benchmark scores across different evaluator versions/configurations.
WHAT CHANGED
Changes affecting this comparison.
No post-baseline factual changes recorded for Nano Banana 2.1, Nano Banana Pro since 2026-10-12.
VERIFIED BASELINE2026-10-12Current facts remain aligned with the SXF ledger.
QUICK ANSWERS
Which has the larger context window: Nano Banana 2.1 or Nano Banana Pro?
Nano Banana 2.1 publishes the larger context window: 131,072 vs 65,536 tokens (2.0×).
Which is cheaper: Nano Banana 2.1 or Nano Banana Pro?
These specialist modalities do not have a directly comparable text-token cost. Check model-specific image, video, credit and service-token pricing instead.
Does SXF declare an overall winner?
No. This page compares source-backed specifications and economics. Quality, latency and task success require workload-specific evaluation evidence.