Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Nano Banana 2.1 vs Summarize

Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Nano Banana 2.1Google
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$7.50
S SummarizeScaledown
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
No data
vs 66K vs 1M context window. Summarize fits 15.3x more.

Nano Banana 2.1 or Summarize: 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 2.1 has results on Design Arena: images, Design Arena: graphic design and Design Arena: logos; Summarize has none yet. 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 2.1 not benchmarked, Summarize 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 2.1 $7.50 against Summarize Free per million output tokens.
Context window
Nano Banana 2.1 takes 66K tokens, Summarize 1M.

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.

Image generationDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Image generation benchmarks for Nano Banana 2.1 and Summarize
BenchmarkNano Banana 2.1SummarizeLeader
Design Arena: images1291Not measuredOnly Nano Banana 2.1 measured
Design Arena: graphic design1333Not measuredOnly Nano Banana 2.1 measured
Design Arena: logos1277Not measuredOnly Nano Banana 2.1 measured
LMArena Text to Image1328Not measuredOnly Nano Banana 2.1 measured
LMArena Image Edit1426Not measuredOnly Nano Banana 2.1 measured

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 2.1$0.0053Fits in one request
Summarize$0.0000Fits in one request

Summarize costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Nano Banana 2.1$0.098Fits in one request
Summarize$0.0020Fits in one request

Summarize costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Nano Banana 2.1$0.375Exceeds the context window
Summarize$0.0080Fits in one request

Summarize 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 2.1 and Summarize
SpecificationGoogle Nano Banana 2.1ScaleDown Summarize
MakerGoogleScaledown
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedOctober 6, 2026October 13, 2026
Context window66K1M
Input $/Mtok$1.50$0.04
Output $/Mtok$7.50Free
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Nano Banana 2.1 better than Summarize 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 2.1 or Summarize?

Nano Banana 2.1 costs $1.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens; Summarize costs $0.04 and Free. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Nano Banana 2.1 or Summarize?

Summarize, with 1M tokens against 66K.

Has any benchmark tested both Nano Banana 2.1 and Summarize?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Nano Banana 2.1 has results on Design Arena: images, Design Arena: graphic design and Design Arena: logos; Summarize has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.

Compare next