Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) vs Granite 4.0 Micro

Granite 4.0 Micro costs 22.3x less per output token than Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) ($0.112 vs $2.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image)Google
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.50
Granite 4.0 MicroIBM Granite
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.112
vs $2.50 vs $0.112 per 1M output tokens. Granite 4.0 Micro is 22.3x cheaper.

Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) or Granite 4.0 Micro: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

No benchmark has tested both yet. Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) has results on Design Arena: images, Design Arena: graphic design and Design Arena: logos; Granite 4.0 Micro on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and AA Intelligence Index. Compare them on price and context instead.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) not benchmarked, Granite 4.0 Micro not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) $2.50 against Granite 4.0 Micro $0.112 per million output tokens, 22.3x apart.
Context window
Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) takes 33K tokens, Granite 4.0 Micro 131K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index2 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) and Granite 4.0 Micro
BenchmarkNano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image)Granite 4.0 MicroLeader
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured18.0%Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured1.5%Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Intelligence benchmarks for Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) and Granite 4.0 Micro
BenchmarkNano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image)Granite 4.0 MicroLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured5.1Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) and Granite 4.0 Micro
BenchmarkNano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image)Granite 4.0 MicroLeader
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured12.6%Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) and Granite 4.0 Micro
BenchmarkNano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image)Granite 4.0 MicroLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured33.6%Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured5.0%Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured28.3%Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
Math benchmarks for Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) and Granite 4.0 Micro
BenchmarkNano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image)Granite 4.0 MicroLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured6.0Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured6.0%Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured2.8%Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Knowledge benchmarks for Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) and Granite 4.0 Micro
BenchmarkNano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image)Granite 4.0 MicroLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured44.7%Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
General benchmarks for Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) and Granite 4.0 Micro
BenchmarkNano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image)Granite 4.0 MicroLeader
IFBenchNot measured24.8%Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured7.0%Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 46 boards here
Image generationDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
Image generation benchmarks for Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) and Granite 4.0 Micro
BenchmarkNano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image)Granite 4.0 MicroLeader
Design Arena: images1178Not measuredOnly Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) measured
Design Arena: graphic design1151Not measuredOnly Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) measured
Design Arena: logos1169Not measuredOnly Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image)$0.0015Fits in one request
Granite 4.0 Micro$0.0001Fits in one request

Granite 4.0 Micro costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image)$0.022Exceeds the context window
Granite 4.0 Micro$0.0012Fits in one request

Granite 4.0 Micro costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image)$0.085Exceeds the context window
Granite 4.0 Micro$0.0045Exceeds the context window

Granite 4.0 Micro costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) and Granite 4.0 Micro
SpecificationGoogle Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image)IBM Granite 4.0 Micro
MakerGoogleIBM Granite
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedOctober 7, 2025October 20, 2025
Context window33K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.017
Output $/Mtok$2.50$0.112
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) better than Granite 4.0 Micro for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) or Granite 4.0 Micro?

Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Granite 4.0 Micro costs $0.017 and $0.112. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) or Granite 4.0 Micro?

Granite 4.0 Micro, with 131K tokens against 33K.

Has any benchmark tested both Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) and Granite 4.0 Micro?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Nano Banana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) has results on Design Arena: images, Design Arena: graphic design and Design Arena: logos; Granite 4.0 Micro on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and AA Intelligence Index. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.

Compare next