Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 1, 2026

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash vs Qwen Image 2.0 Pro benchmark

Name: MAI-Image-2.5-Flash vs Qwen Image 2.0 Pro AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares MAI-Image-2.5-Flash (Microsoft AI) and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro (Alibaba) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 1, 2026. Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

Microsoft AI

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash

Cost-optimized Microsoft AI image model delivering sub-2 second responses at $20/1k images.

FlashImg Elo 1,231$20/1k imgs

Alibaba

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro

Alibaba multimodal image synthesis foundation model with strong bilingual Chinese/English typography and cultural asset fidelity.

Img Elo 1,236$75/1k imgs

Model Lineage & Multi-Tier Derivatives

MAI-Image Series Family (2 models)

Compare vs Base (MAI-Image-2.5)

MAI-Image-2.5

Microsoft AI

Flagship Base

Elo

1307

Latency

3.8s

Price

$48.1/1k

View model →vs this

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash

Microsoft AI

Flash

Elo

1231

Latency

1.6s

Price

$20/1k

-76 Elo-58% cost

Viewing now

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash (2)vsQwen Image 2.0 Pro (3)

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash: 2W (40%)Overall: Qwen Image 2.0 ProQwen Image 2.0 Pro: 3W (60%)

← MAI-Image-2.5-FlashQwen Image 2.0 Pro →

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro (3/3)

Visual Quality & Adherence

Arena Preference Elo, prompt fidelity & typography score

Image Elo

1,231vs1,236

Prompt adherence

88.5%vs90.8%

Text rendering

89%vs92%

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash: 0WQwen Image 2.0 Pro: 3W

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash (1/1)

Generation Latency

Time to render full-resolution image snapshot (seconds)

Generation time

1.6svs3.6s

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash: 1WQwen Image 2.0 Pro: 0W

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash (1/1)

Cost Efficiency

API inference cost per 1,000 generated images

Price per 1k images

$20/1kvs$75/1k

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash: 1WQwen Image 2.0 Pro: 0W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageQwen Image 2.0 Pro 3/6

Image Preference Elo

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro

5 pts advantage

Generation Latency

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash

2.0s faster

Image Price Efficiency

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash

$55.0/1k cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Img Elo

High is better

1,231

Img EloHigh is better

1,236

Gen Time

Low is better

+125%1.6s

Gen TimeLow is better

3.6s

Img $

Low is better

+275%$20/1k

Img $Low is better

$75/1k

Prompt %

High is better

88.5%

Prompt %High is better

90.8%+3%

Text %

High is better

89%

Text %High is better

92%+3%

Interactive Simulator (USD)

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).

Save up to 73% with MAI-Image-2.5-Flash

Monthly Image Production Volume25k images / month (25000 imgs)

Quick Presets:

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash$500.00 / mo

Rate: $20/1k

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro$1,875.00 / mo

Rate: $75/1k

Estimated Cost Delta

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash is estimated to save $1,375.00/month ($16,500/year).

Based on 25k images generated

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatinsufficient data

Need list prices.

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGinsufficient data

Need context sizes.

Screenshots / visioninsufficient data

Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (undefined).

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	insufficient data	Need list prices.
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	insufficient data	Need context sizes.
Screenshots / vision	insufficient data	Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (undefined).

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/mai-image-2-5-flash-vs-qwen-image-2-pro/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Microsoft AI

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash

Elo n/a

LiveBench—

SWE-bench—

Speed—

Output cost—

Alibaba

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro

Elo n/a

LiveBench—

SWE-bench—

Speed—

Output cost—

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, MAI-Image-2.5-Flash or Qwen Image 2.0 Pro?: We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.
Which is better at coding, MAI-Image-2.5-Flash or Qwen Image 2.0 Pro?: SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: List prices are missing for at least one model.
Which is faster, MAI-Image-2.5-Flash or Qwen Image 2.0 Pro?: We do not have TTFT for both models.
Which has the larger context window?: Context window is missing for at least one model.
Can I self-host either model?: Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. MAI-Image-2.5-Flash and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All MAI-Image-2.5-Flash matchups →|All Qwen Image 2.0 Pro matchups →

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash vs MAI-Image-2.5 (previous other)MAI-Image-2.5 vs Qwen Image 2.0 Pro GPT Image 2 (High) vs Qwen Image 2.0 Pro Reve 2.1 vs Qwen Image 2.0 Pro Nano Banana Pro (Gemini 3 Pro Image) vs Qwen Image 2.0 Pro Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) vs Qwen Image 2.0 Pro

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash (2)vsQwen Image 2.0 Pro (3)

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash: 2W (40%)Overall: Qwen Image 2.0 ProQwen Image 2.0 Pro: 3W (60%)

← MAI-Image-2.5-FlashQwen Image 2.0 Pro →

Qwen Image 2.0 Pro (3/3)

Visual Quality & Adherence

Arena Preference Elo, prompt fidelity & typography score

Image Elo

1,231vs1,236

Prompt adherence

88.5%vs90.8%

Text rendering

89%vs92%

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash: 0WQwen Image 2.0 Pro: 3W

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash (1/1)

Generation Latency

Time to render full-resolution image snapshot (seconds)

Generation time

1.6svs3.6s

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash: 1WQwen Image 2.0 Pro: 0W

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash (1/1)

Cost Efficiency

API inference cost per 1,000 generated images

Price per 1k images

$20/1kvs$75/1k

MAI-Image-2.5-Flash: 1WQwen Image 2.0 Pro: 0W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatinsufficient data

Need list prices.

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGinsufficient data

Need context sizes.

Screenshots / visioninsufficient data

Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (undefined).

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	insufficient data	Need list prices.
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	insufficient data	Need context sizes.
Screenshots / vision	insufficient data	Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (undefined).

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, MAI-Image-2.5-Flash or Qwen Image 2.0 Pro?

We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.

Which is better at coding, MAI-Image-2.5-Flash or Qwen Image 2.0 Pro?

SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

List prices are missing for at least one model.

Which is faster, MAI-Image-2.5-Flash or Qwen Image 2.0 Pro?

We do not have TTFT for both models.

Which has the larger context window?

Context window is missing for at least one model.

Can I self-host either model?

Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. MAI-Image-2.5-Flash and Qwen Image 2.0 Pro Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.