Comment by vunderba

2 hours ago

Well, the results are in, at least for text-to-image (the editing bench will come later).

Qwen-Image 2.1 is definitely a pretty big leap over the last open-weight version, Qwen-Image 1.0, released back in August of last year and managed to score 7 out of 15 as opposed to its predecessor which scored 4 out of 15.

Even though it's significantly smaller, 7b vs 20b, it's multimodal (so you don't need a separate image-to-image model like you did with Qwen-Edit), more coherent, and significantly faster even when outputting at higher 2K resolutions. However, in my testing, I found that I had to play with dialing up the CFG depending on the complexity of the prompt.

I've also added a progress dropdown under Model Performance so you can see how cloud vs. local models have been trending since 2024. Spoiler: June of this year released some of the biggest bangers (Krea 2, Ideogram 4, and the kind of slept-on Boogu-Image 0.1).

Downsides:

- It was clearly trained on at least some level of synthetic training data, and it shows in some of the subpar outputs in terms of fidelity. Some of this you might be able to iron out with a refiner model downstream or a custom LoRA but time will tell.

- They've moved away from the permissive Apache license. Commercial usage is only allowed by request.

Comparisons:

https://genai-showdown.specr.net

If you just want to compare local models only:

http://genai-showdown.specr.net/?models=local

> and the kind of slept-on Boogu-Image 0.1

Not slept on at all. It was absolute trash, and I’m super curious why people pretend otherwise. There isn’t a single thing that model did better than any temporal peer.