Google “Nano Banana” (Alias Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) is everywhere. You've probably seen 3D-Toy avatarsCollector's visualizations or hyperrealistic editions in your channel and wondered: is it really AI doing magic?
It turns out, yes – and it's not just Google in the race. Recent tests of AI image tools put nano banana on the front-but its pretenders are closing quickly.
What we learned after comparing
Deep diving against ChatgPT (GPT-5), Image edition QWEN and GROK AI It shows that everyone has their own superpower – and everyone has a place where there is no. Test: Make a realistic figurine on a 1/7 scale of fast toys packaging, detailed shading, lighting, background props, computer desk, acrylic base, etc.
- Banana nano strength This is speed, reliable realism and maintaining visual cohesion – when you change prompts, elements that matter (faces, textures, lighting) remain stable.
- ChatgPT (GPT-5) It gives a very good understanding of the instructions. If you say these small details, he usually listens. But its minus: slower generation, and sometimes faces of the face/features.
- Edition of the QWEN image It shines in sharpness, textures and backgrounds. Often better than others in the environment, color and lighting. But a compromise? The faces sometimes disappear and struggle with continuity when you need to use the character/design again.
- GROK AI It is good, especially if you want to join a video or animation, but less, if you strive for a perfectly refined 3D-figurine style, still visualization. He tends to remain behind others in small details.
Why do people care so much – except for “cool photos”
Madness is not just aesthetic. This is a test case of what people expect from generating AI image:
- Consistency: When you create a character or figurine, you want Look the same in various hints or styles. It's difficult if your model still changes lighting, facial proportions, etc. Nano Banana seems better there.
- Speed vs. Poland: We like quick results – especially in social media, brand content or simply sharing with friends. But if the output is not clean, people notice. Some tools trade the speed of precision.
- Ease of teaching: Edition of the natural language, intuitive control, less “re-do-do” = big plus. If I have to write a dozen hints to fix something, I could just give up. Some of these tools are better than others in the interpretation of what users have in mindNot only what they are to talk.
What is missing, which can improve
I noticed a few wrinkles reading tests and a conversation with people:
- The facial accuracy is still weak in tools outside the banana nano. For creators who want real similarity (e.g. portraits, brands), this is of great importance.
- Free use limits are moving out. Some tools allow you to create many images; Others limit it by choke experiments.
- In the case of Pro (advertising, design), reference images, a coherent style on many outputs and color control are still distinguished.
My opinion: Is the winner Nano Banana?
From what I saw, yes – he currently has the advantage. But this is not unexpected lead. ChatgPt, Qwen, Groke improves quickly.
If you care about the ultra fast photorealism with consistency, Nano banana is yours. If you care about a texture, background, creative flexibility or video, some others may beat you there.
What to see the next one
- How these models improve continuity (e.g. the same sign in the hint)
- Will the creators bend towards hybrids (use one for quick mockups, the other for Polish)
- How price limits, access and use will change the chances
