Image workflow comparison
Nano Banana 2 vs ChatGPT Images 2.5
This guide compares Nano Banana 2, Google's Gemini 3.1 Flash Image model available in Imgo, with the current ChatGPT Images 2.5 workflow. DALL-E is retained only as a legacy synonym because OpenAI has retired the official DALL-E GPT from ChatGPT.
Reviewed September 15, 2026. Product names, limits, and availability can change. The table separates documented capabilities from the controlled test your team still needs to run.
Choose ChatGPT Images 2.5 when…
You prefer conversational image creation, selection-based edits, templates, and multi-turn refinement inside ChatGPT.
Choose Nano Banana 2 in Imgo when…
You want to select an image model in a shared workspace, compare candidates, and hand a result into editing, assets, or video production.
What to compare
| Decision factor | Nano Banana 2 in Imgo | ChatGPT Images 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Where you work | Select Nano Banana 2 in Imgo's image generator, then hand a result into its editor, asset library, or video tools. | Create and revise images in ChatGPT's conversational Images workflow, including templates and Sketch where available. |
| Reference inputs | Use one or more references for a product, person, style, or composition; verify the live input limit before running. | Upload a photo or provide a sketch, then describe the generation or edit you want in ChatGPT. |
| Editing | Use prompt editing, masked inpainting, outpainting, and text replacement in the dedicated image editor. | Use conversational instructions, comments, or a selected area. OpenAI documents improved preservation outside the requested edit in Images 2.5. |
| Consistency | Reuse reference and asset context across image and downstream video tasks, then inspect identity, logos, and labels. | OpenAI documents better subject preservation and multi-turn editing consistency; verify both with your own references. |
| Price and access | Check the live credit quote and current Imgo plan before submitting. | Check the current ChatGPT plan and image usage limits; API access is a separate product decision. |
| Speed and quality | Measure elapsed time and accepted results with your own inputs. | Run the same test and record the same measures. No independent benchmark is claimed here. |
A repeatable test
Use the same owned product photo, prompt, 1:1 aspect ratio, and output count in both workflows. Run three attempts, then one targeted edit that changes only the background. Record first-result latency, total usage or credits, product-shape drift, logo and label accuracy, edit spill outside the requested area, and accepted results. Keep every output so readers can inspect the evidence; this page does not claim an unrun benchmark winner.
Prompt
A clean three-panel product launch graphic for a reusable water bottle, exact headline 'Refill Tomorrow', off-white background, cobalt accent
Input and controls
Attach the same owned bottle photo and request the same 1:1 layout in both products.
Record these outcomes
- Exact headline spelling
- Bottle shape and label
- Time to a usable edit
- Export size and cost