Exact prompt<\/summary>a cute red panda in a teacup, studio lighting<\/pre><\/details>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 \u2014 our original API output. Requested 16:9 \/ 1K; returned 1365 \u00d7 768 PNG. One output from this model for this prompt; no retouching.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 Pro<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 Pro \u2014 our original API output. Requested 16:9 \/ 1K; returned 1365 \u00d7 768 PNG. One output from this model for this prompt; no retouching.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n\nStandard:<\/strong> the panda\u2019s body sits behind the cup rim, giving the requested \u201cin a teacup\u201d composition. Fur, whiskers, and the porcelain\u2019s floral pattern are clearly visible.<\/li>\n\n\n\nPro:<\/strong> the panda\u2019s body, tail, and feet sit outside the cup, with its head leaning over the rim. The detailed fur does not correct that spatial mismatch.<\/li>\n\n\n\nSample verdict:<\/strong> standard follows the central instruction more closely. Both produce detailed studio-style imagery; this pair does not establish a general realism winner.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\nTest 2: A Text-Heavy Coffee Infographic<\/h3>\n\n\n\nExact prompt<\/summary>Design a white 16:9 infographic with purple headers. Title: COFFEE BREW GUIDE. Three equal cards, left to right: [01, POUR OVER, Coffee: 20 g, Water: 300 ml, Time: 3:00]; [02, FRENCH PRESS, Coffee: 30 g, Water: 500 ml, Time: 4:00]; [03, ESPRESSO, Coffee: 18 g, Yield: 36 g, Time: 0:30]. One brewing-device line icon per card. Footer: Fresh beans. Better mornings. Render all text exactly. No extra text or watermark.<\/pre><\/details>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 \u2014 our original API output. Requested 16:9 \/ 1K; returned 1365 \u00d7 768 PNG. One output from this model for this prompt; no retouching.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 Pro<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 Pro \u2014 our original API output. Requested 16:9 \/ 1K; returned 1365 \u00d7 768 PNG. One output from this model for this prompt; no retouching.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nWe checked 17 text units<\/strong>: the title, five units per card (number, method name, and three recipe lines), and the footer. Both outputs preserve the wording, punctuation, numbers, and card assignments, with spacing differences ignored. This is a manual check of these two files, not a general text-accuracy percentage.<\/p>\n\n\n\nCheck<\/th> Qwen Image 3.0<\/th> Qwen Image 3.0 Pro<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Requested text units reproduced<\/td> 17 \/ 17<\/td> 17 \/ 17<\/td><\/tr> Three cards in the requested order<\/td> Yes<\/td> Yes<\/td><\/tr> Device icons matching the named method<\/td> 1 \/ 3<\/td> 1 \/ 3<\/td><\/tr> Visual treatment<\/td> Thinner device outlines; purple header strips<\/td> Larger lettering; heavier outlines; numbered circles<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/div>\n\n\n\nReadable text and correct illustrations are different checks<\/figcaption>Text units<\/strong>17 \/ 17 \u00b7 both<\/p>
The requested labels and numbers survived.<\/p><\/div>
Correct brewing devices<\/strong>1 \/ 3 \u00b7 both<\/p>
The French press and espresso cards still show pour-over-style equipment.<\/p><\/div><\/div>
Manual review of one infographic per named API route. Counts apply only to these images; they are not benchmark scores.<\/p><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\nText and layout:<\/strong> both retained all requested information and the three-card order. Pro uses larger type, but did not recover text missing from standard because none was missing.<\/li>\n\n\n\nContent accuracy:<\/strong> both reused pour-over-style equipment under all three methods. Neither produced a recognizable French press or espresso setup.<\/li>\n\n\n\nSample verdict:<\/strong> a tie on the specified text checks, with the same substantive illustration errors. Pro\u2019s styling change did not remove the main correction task.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\nTest 3: Bilingual event poster<\/h3>\n\n\n\n This brief adds Simplified Chinese to an English event poster, plus an exact cup count and an ordered footer. We checked eight requested text units visually: five main strings and three bilingual badges.<\/p>\n\n\n\nExact prompt<\/summary>Design a clean 16:9 bilingual coffee-festival poster on ivory paper with red headings. Render exactly: 'SPRING COFFEE FAIR', '\u6625\u65e5\u5496\u5561\u8282', 'SAT 24 OCT', '10:00\u201318:00', 'FREE ENTRY'. Show exactly three red coffee cups in one row. Add three equal footer badges, left to right: 'TASTE \/ \u54c1\u9274', 'LEARN \/ \u5b66\u4e60', 'MEET \/ \u4ea4\u6d41'. No other words, objects, logos, or watermark. Keep every character clear.<\/pre><\/details>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 \u2014 our original API output. Requested 16:9 \/ 1K; returned 1365 \u00d7 768 PNG. One output from this model for this prompt; no retouching.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 Pro<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 Pro \u2014 our original API output. Requested 16:9 \/ 1K; returned 1365 \u00d7 768 PNG. One output from this model for this prompt; no retouching.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n\nStandard:<\/strong> All eight requested text units are legible, including the Chinese headline and badge labels. Three red cups appear in one row, with the footer badges in the requested order. The date, time, and admission details share a compact line above the cups.<\/li>\n\n\n\nPro:<\/strong> The same eight text units are legible, with three cups and the correct badge order. Date, time, and admission sit in larger type below the cups, giving those details more space.<\/li>\n\n\n\nSample verdict:<\/strong> No clear content-accuracy winner in this pair. Pro changes the information hierarchy; standard also preserves the requested bilingual content. This is a visual reading check, not a character-level OCR benchmark or a verdict on Chinese rendering in general.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\nTest 4: Glass perfume product photograph<\/h3>\n\n\n\n The product brief checks three exact label lines, a single glass bottle, one leaf on its left, and a visible reflection on a black plinth. Material appearance is an editorial judgment, separate from those count and text checks.<\/p>\n\n\n\nExact prompt<\/summary>Premium 16:9 studio product photograph. Exactly one clear glass perfume bottle, rectangular with rounded shoulders, pale amber liquid, a brushed silver cap, and a white label reading exactly 'LUMA' above 'EAU DE PARFUM' above '50 ml'. Put it on a black glossy plinth with a physically plausible reflection, one fresh green leaf on its left, warm light from the upper right, a soft beige background. No extra bottles, text, logos, or watermark.<\/pre><\/details>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 \u2014 our original API output. Requested 16:9 \/ 1K; returned 1365 \u00d7 768 PNG. One output from this model for this prompt; no retouching.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 Pro<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 Pro \u2014 our original API output. Requested 16:9 \/ 1K; returned 1365 \u00d7 768 PNG. One output from this model for this prompt; no retouching.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n\nStandard:<\/strong> The single bottle carries all three label lines correctly, with a green leaf on its left. The glass edges, amber liquid, brushed-metal cap, and visible partial reflection create a plausible studio-product look. The label uses a serif brand name and a thin border.<\/li>\n\n\n\nPro:<\/strong> The same three label lines, single bottle, left-side leaf, and partial reflection are present. It uses a taller cylindrical cap, a borderless label, and a sans-serif brand name. The glass and leaf remain visibly detailed.<\/li>\n\n\n\nSample verdict:<\/strong> Both satisfy the main count, text, and placement checks. The cap and label styling differ, but neither has a clear instruction-following advantage. The reflection is visually plausible; we did not validate physical optics.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\nTest 5: Six-object spatial grid<\/h3>\n\n\n\n This six-object diagram tests counting, object identity, color, grid position, and arrow direction without any text to render.<\/p>\n\n\n\nExact prompt<\/summary>A clean 16:9 orthographic 3D diagram on white. Draw exactly six separate objects on a two-row, three-column grid. Top row left to right: one red cube, one blue sphere, one yellow cone. Bottom row left to right: one green cylinder, one purple pyramid, one orange torus. Add a single black arrow pointing down from the blue sphere to the purple pyramid. Soft shadows, no extra shapes, no letters, no numbers, no watermark.<\/pre><\/details>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 \u2014 our original API output. Requested 16:9 \/ 1K; returned 1365 \u00d7 768 PNG. One output from this model for this prompt; no retouching.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 Pro<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nQwen Image 3.0 Pro \u2014 our original API output. Requested 16:9 \/ 1K; returned 1365 \u00d7 768 PNG. One output from this model for this prompt; no retouching.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n\nStandard:<\/strong> All six requested objects occupy the correct two-row, three-column positions with the specified colors. One black arrow points down from the blue sphere toward the purple pyramid. There are no extra shapes or labels.<\/li>\n\n\n\nPro:<\/strong> The six shapes, colors, positions, and single downward arrow also match. Softer surface texture and edge highlights change the appearance without changing the diagram’s content.<\/li>\n\n\n\nSample verdict:<\/strong> Both pass the specified counting and spatial checks in this pair. Neither has a content-accuracy advantage. A six-object layout does not establish performance on more crowded scenes or repeated trials.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n