Benchmark Almanac

Qwen-Image-Bench

Not in model cards

Text-to-image models are tested on professional creative work, from faithful real-world reconstruction to creative expression. A released judge model scores the images.

The judge model is on Hugging Face and ModelScope. About 50 likes on the dataset.

Made by
Qwen (Alibaba)
Released
May 2026
Kind
Video generation
Level
Everyday
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Text-to-Image generation has evolved from basic image synthesis into a frequently used core capability in professional creative workflows, where simple text-image alignment can no longer satisfy users' pressing demands for faithful real-world reconstruction and genuine creative expression. Existing benchmarks, however, remain anchored in these foundational criteria and do not yet capture the nuanced capabilities that matter in authentic artistic practice, making it difficult to reliably distinguish state-of-the-art T2I models. To address the gap, we introduce Qwen-Image-Bench, a creator-centric benchmark co-designed with professional artists and grounded in real-world creation scenarios. Qwen-Image-Bench enriches conventional evaluation with two application-driven dimensions: Real-world Fidelity and Creative Generation. Drawing on the staged reasoning inherent in professional artistic workflows, we organize these five pillars into a top-down hierarchical taxonomy that further decomposes into 23 second-level sub-capabilities and 56 third-level verifiable rubrics. To ensure broad coverage, we curate 1000 stratified prompts with each prompt jointly exercising more than four fine-grained facets across multiple pillars. We train a unified judge model Q-Judger based on Qwen3.6-27B, supervised by 80 professional annotators from global art academies under blind labeling and triple-review protocols, that scores every image across all 56 verifiable facets, producing fine-grained, rubric-grounded, and fully attributable diagnostics rather than a single opaque score. Empirically, Qwen-Image-Bench reliably distinguishes leading T2I models, achieving the greatest separation on the two application-driven dimensions of Real-world Fidelity and Creative Generation where existing benchmarks provide little insight, while also providing a trustworthy optimization signal for production-level T2I development.

Abstract of Qwen-Image-Bench: From Generation to Creation in Text-to-Image Evaluation (arXiv:2605.28091, CC0)
18
Entries on its own leaderboard, 12 models we track

GPT-Image-2 leads with 64.7

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

  1. 1 GPT-Image-2 64.7
  2. 2 Nano Banana 2.0 59.8
  3. 3 GPT-Image-1.5 59.6
  4. 4 Nano Banana Pro 59.5
  5. 5 Qwen-Image-2.0-Pro 57.8
  6. 6 Seedream 5.0 57.2
  7. 7 Seedream 4.5 56.8
  8. 8 Seedream 4.0 56.2
  9. 9 FLUX.2 [max] 55.3
  10. 10 FLUX.2 [pro] 54.6
  11. 11 GPT-Image-1 54.1
  12. 12 Qwen-Image (2512) 52.1
  13. 13 Imagen 4.0 Ultra 52.0
  14. 14 HunyuanImage 3.0 50.8
  15. 15 Imagen 4.0 50.3
  16. 16 Qwen-Image 49.2
  17. 17 Kling Image 2.1 48.3
  18. 18 GLM-Image 48.2

Source: Official Qwen-Image-Bench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-Image-2 64.7 Official leaderboard
2 Nano Banana 2.0 59.8 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-Image-1.5 59.6 Official leaderboard
4 Nano Banana Pro 59.5 Official leaderboard
5 Qwen-Image-2.0-Pro 57.8 Official leaderboard
6 Seedream 5.0 57.2 Official leaderboard
7 Seedream 4.5 56.8 Official leaderboard
8 Seedream 4.0 56.2 Official leaderboard
9 FLUX.2 [max] 55.3 Official leaderboard
10 FLUX.2 [pro] 54.6 Official leaderboard
11 GPT-Image-1 54.1 Official leaderboard
12 Qwen-Image (2512) 52.1 Official leaderboard
13 Imagen 4.0 Ultra 52.0 Official leaderboard
14 HunyuanImage 3.0 50.8 Official leaderboard
15 Imagen 4.0 50.3 Official leaderboard
16 Qwen-Image 49.2 Official leaderboard
17 Kling Image 2.1 48.3 Official leaderboard
18 GLM-Image 48.2 Official leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

No dated values yet.

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Audio and video

All 233 in Audio and video
  • Video-MMMU In use 300 expert-level lecture videos with questions testing perception, comprehension and adaptation of knowledge. Accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 88.7%
  • LVBench In use Hours-long video understanding with multiple-choice questions on reasoning, grounding and summarization. Gemini 4 Argon 91.7%
  • MMVU In use 3,000 expert-annotated questions on videos across 27 disciplines. Multiple-choice and open-ended accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 82.4%
  • MLVU In use Multi-task long video understanding (minutes to hours) with multiple-choice and generation tasks. Accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 90.8%
  • FLEURS In use Models transcribe read speech in 102 languages built from FLoRes-101 sentences. Model cards usually report word error rate, so lower scores are better. Phi-4-multimodal 4.00%
  • VoiceBench In use Spoken instructions with speaker, environment and content variation. Voice assistant responses scored by GPT judge or rules. Qwen3.5-Omni-Plus 93.1%