Skip to content

Image models compared

Ideogram 3.0 vs Qwen-Image 2.1: the same prompts, side by side

Ideogram 3.0 and Alibaba's Qwen-Image 2.1 on the same 16 prompts, two for each of 8 jobs, from logos to YouTube thumbnails: each image as it was made, what the checks found, what it cost and how long it took.

Based on 32 images made on September 29, 2026 through kie.ai with llmwise's own settings for each model, each checked by Claude Sonnet 5.5. How the images are checked.

Short answer

On our 16 image test prompts, Ideogram 3.0 and Qwen-Image 2.1 each passed 11, each image checked the same way. Ideogram 3.0 was quicker, 73.5 s an image against 79.9 s. In llmwise a Ideogram 3.0 image counts as 2 Claude Haiku 4.5 messages and a Qwen-Image 2.1 image as 1 Claude Haiku 4.5 message: up to 125 and 250 images a month on Pro.

Ideogram 3.0 and Qwen-Image 2.1 in llmwise

What llmwise asks Ideogram 3.0 and Qwen-Image 2.1 for, and what an image of each counts as.

Ideogram 3.0 and Qwen-Image 2.1 in llmwise
FactIdeogram 3.0Qwen-Image 2.1
Made byIdeogramAlibaba
Made throughkie.aikie.ai
Output sizeabout 1 megapixel1K
Aspect ratiossquare 1:1, portrait 3:4, landscape 4:3square 1:1, portrait 2:3, landscape 3:2
An image counts as2 Claude Haiku 4.5 messages1 Claude Haiku 4.5 message
Images on Proup to 125 a monthup to 250 a month

Job by job

Ideogram 3.0 passed 11 of 16 and Qwen-Image 2.1 11 of 16. A prompt passes when every piece of writing it asked for is there and every question about the image is a yes.

Ideogram 3.0 and Qwen-Image 2.1, job by job
JobIdeogram 3.0Qwen-Image 2.1
Logos2 of 2 passed, 12 of 12 checks1 of 2 passed, 11 of 12 checks
Text in images2 of 2 passed, 14 of 14 checks2 of 2 passed, 14 of 14 checks
Product photos1 of 2 passed, 6 of 12 checks2 of 2 passed, 12 of 12 checks
Photorealistic images2 of 2 passed, 11 of 11 checks0 of 2 passed, 9 of 11 checks
Illustrations1 of 2 passed, 9 of 10 checks2 of 2 passed, 10 of 10 checks
Portraits0 of 2 passed, 5 of 13 checks2 of 2 passed, 13 of 13 checks
YouTube thumbnails2 of 2 passed, 12 of 12 checks1 of 2 passed, 11 of 12 checks
Social media posts1 of 2 passed, 11 of 12 checks1 of 2 passed, 11 of 12 checks

The same prompts, side by side

Ideogram 3.0's and Qwen-Image 2.1's image for each prompt, with each question either one was answered no on; a prompt's title links to it in full, with every answer.

  1. A coffee shop logo with its name

    Both Ideogram 3.0 and Qwen-Image 2.1 passed; Qwen-Image 2.1's image came 47.9 s sooner (56.5 s to 104.4 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

  2. A wheel and a wrench in one icon

    Only Ideogram 3.0 passed, not Qwen-Image 2.1; Qwen-Image 2.1's image came 9.9 s sooner (53.7 s to 63.6 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

    Ideogram 3.0Passed
    Ideogram 3.0's image for “A wheel and a wrench in one icon”
      Qwen-Image 2.1Failed
      Qwen-Image 2.1's image for “A wheel and a wrench in one icon”
      • Is there a bicycle wheel in the icon? No: The icon is a plain circle with a short horizontal line, with no spokes, tire or hub, so it reads as a ring rather than a bicycle wheel.
    • A bakery sign with two lines

      Both Ideogram 3.0 and Qwen-Image 2.1 passed; Qwen-Image 2.1's image came 33.8 s sooner (30.9 s to 64.6 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

    • A café menu board with four prices

      Both Ideogram 3.0 and Qwen-Image 2.1 passed; Ideogram 3.0's image came 20.6 s sooner (62.1 s to 82.7 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

    • A white sneaker on a grey background

      Only Qwen-Image 2.1 passed, not Ideogram 3.0: Ideogram 3.0 made no image.

      Ideogram 3.0Failed

      No image: kie.ai reported that the task failed, both times we tried.

      Qwen-Image 2.1Passed
      Qwen-Image 2.1's image for “A white sneaker on a grey background”
      • A perfume bottle and its reflection

        Both Ideogram 3.0 and Qwen-Image 2.1 passed; Ideogram 3.0's image came 27.4 s sooner (63.6 s to 91.0 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

      • A bowl of ramen from above

        Only Ideogram 3.0 passed, not Qwen-Image 2.1; Ideogram 3.0's image came 34.7 s sooner (83.3 s to 118.0 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

        Ideogram 3.0Passed
        Ideogram 3.0's image for “A bowl of ramen from above”
          Qwen-Image 2.1Failed
          Qwen-Image 2.1's image for “A bowl of ramen from above”
          • Are chopsticks resting across the bowl? No: The chopsticks lie on the table and reach the bowl's lower left edge, but they do not rest across the bowl. They look more like they pass over or in front of the rim than rest on it.
        • A rainy street at night, one red umbrella

          Only Ideogram 3.0 passed, not Qwen-Image 2.1; Ideogram 3.0's image came 69.0 s sooner (62.7 s to 131.7 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

          Ideogram 3.0Passed
          Ideogram 3.0's image for “A rainy street at night, one red umbrella”
            Qwen-Image 2.1Failed
            Qwen-Image 2.1's image for “A rainy street at night, one red umbrella”
            • Is the person walking away from the camera? No: The person is seen from the side or back and appears to be crossing or facing sideways, so it isn't clearly walking away from the camera.
          • A watercolour fox for a children's book

            Only Qwen-Image 2.1 passed, not Ideogram 3.0; Ideogram 3.0's image came 60.6 s sooner (83.0 s to 143.6 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

            Ideogram 3.0Failed
            Ideogram 3.0's image for “A watercolour fox for a children's book”
            • Is it a watercolour painting, not a photo or a 3D render? No: It looks like a digital painting with soft brushwork and detailed rendering, not clearly a watercolour, photo or 3D render.
            Qwen-Image 2.1Passed
            Qwen-Image 2.1's image for “A watercolour fox for a children's book”
            • Three people at one laptop, flat vector

              Both Ideogram 3.0 and Qwen-Image 2.1 passed; Ideogram 3.0's image came 41.1 s sooner (63.5 s to 104.6 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

            • A studio headshot

              Only Qwen-Image 2.1 passed, not Ideogram 3.0: Ideogram 3.0 made no image.

              Ideogram 3.0Failed

              No image: kie.ai reported that the task failed, both times we tried.

              Qwen-Image 2.1Passed
              Qwen-Image 2.1's image for “A studio headshot”
              • A fisherman holding a rope in both hands

                Only Qwen-Image 2.1 passed, not Ideogram 3.0; Qwen-Image 2.1's image came 32.7 s sooner (30.8 s to 63.5 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

                Ideogram 3.0Failed
                Ideogram 3.0's image for “A fisherman holding a rope in both hands”
                • Does every hand you can see have five fingers and look natural? No: The hands are clasped and partly hidden by the rope, so not every finger can be counted and confirmed as five.
                Qwen-Image 2.1Passed
                Qwen-Image 2.1's image for “A fisherman holding a rope in both hands”
                • A cooking video thumbnail

                  Only Ideogram 3.0 passed, not Qwen-Image 2.1; Qwen-Image 2.1's image came 81.2 s sooner (43.4 s to 124.6 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

                  Ideogram 3.0Passed
                  Ideogram 3.0's image for “A cooking video thumbnail”
                    Qwen-Image 2.1Failed
                    Qwen-Image 2.1's image for “A cooking video thumbnail”
                    • Are there flames coming from the pan? No: The flames are on the far left beside the man, not coming from the pan, which only holds food and flying bits.
                  • A phone review thumbnail with a question

                    Both Ideogram 3.0 and Qwen-Image 2.1 passed; Qwen-Image 2.1's image came 27.9 s sooner (35.7 s to 63.6 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

                  • A summer sale post

                    Both Ideogram 3.0 and Qwen-Image 2.1 passed; Qwen-Image 2.1's image came 40.6 s sooner (23.1 s to 63.7 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

                  • A book club announcement, top and bottom

                    Neither Ideogram 3.0 nor Qwen-Image 2.1 passed; Ideogram 3.0's image came 28.1 s sooner (63.5 s to 91.7 s), and Qwen-Image 2.1's cost $0.015 less at kie.ai.

                    Ideogram 3.0Failed
                    Ideogram 3.0's image for “A book club announcement, top and bottom”
                    • Is there an open book? No: The book is standing upright with its page edges facing the viewer, so it is closed, not open.
                    Qwen-Image 2.1Failed
                    Qwen-Image 2.1's image for “A book club announcement, top and bottom”
                    • Apart from those two lines, is nothing else written? No: The open book's pages show small blurry lines of text, so there is other writing, though it is unreadable.

                  More image models, compared

                  Questions

                  Is Ideogram 3.0 better than Qwen-Image 2.1?

                  On our 16 image test prompts, Ideogram 3.0 and Qwen-Image 2.1 each passed 11, each image checked the same way. Ideogram 3.0 was quicker, 73.5 s an image against 79.9 s. In llmwise a Ideogram 3.0 image counts as 2 Claude Haiku 4.5 messages and a Qwen-Image 2.1 image as 1 Claude Haiku 4.5 message: up to 125 and 250 images a month on Pro.

                  Which is cheaper in llmwise, Ideogram 3.0 or Qwen-Image 2.1?

                  Qwen-Image 2.1: in llmwise its image counts as 1 Claude Haiku 4.5 message, against 2 Claude Haiku 4.5 messages for Ideogram 3.0.

                  Claude, GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, Grok, Kimi, and GLM, in one chat.

                  See what a message costs before you send it. Free is 5 messages to try; sign in with an email link, no password or card.