Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)
- Context
- 131,072
- Max output
- 32,768
- Input / MTok
- See native rates
- Cached / MTok
- —
- Output / MTok
- See native rates
- Input types
- text + image
VERIFIED PROVIDER CAPABILITIES AND BILLING / VERIFIED 2026-10-12
Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)
vs Nano Banana 2.1
Compare these independently addressable official model endpoints on their native pricing units, documented capabilities, lifecycle and workflow fit.
LIVE VERIFIED FACTS
Current facts from the SXF model database.
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
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.
Native pricing
Use each model's official Standard pricing basis, prompt-tier thresholds, modality and generation resolution; do not compare mixed units as equal.
Workflow decision
Test representative user tasks, media inputs, latency needs and output quality. No fabricated benchmark score or winner is claimed.
DECISION FACTORS
What materially changes the choice.
Context capacity
Both publish a 131,072-token context window.
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 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image), Nano Banana 2.1 since 2026-10-12.
VERIFIED BASELINE2026-10-12Current facts remain aligned with the SXF ledger.
OFFICIAL SOURCES
Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) official specs↗Nano Banana 2.1 official specs↗QUICK ANSWERS
Which has the larger context window: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) or Nano Banana 2.1?
Both publish a 131,072-token context window.
Which is cheaper: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) or Nano Banana 2.1?
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.