Nano Banana Pro vs 2.1 on Sume: 1.25x at 2K, 1.875x at 1K and 4K

On Sume, Nano Banana Pro costs 1.875 times Nano Banana 2.1 at 1K ($0.1875 against $0.10) and at 4K ($0.375 against $0.20), but only 1.25 times at 2K ($0.1875 against $0.15). Pro is the same $0.1875 at 1K and 2K, so if you were going to render 2K anyway, the premium for Pro is the smallest it gets.

Side by side

Both rows are Sume catalog prices read on 2026-10-09. Pro's row is flat across 1K and 2K and then rises at 4K.

What the pattern means

The premium for Pro is $7.50 per 200 images at 2K, $17.50 at 1K and $35.00 at 4K. If Pro's output matters for the picture, 2K is the cheapest place to pay for it. If you only need Pro at 1K, note that 2K costs the same on Pro, so there is no saving from picking the smaller tier.

The pricing is the only thing this post compares. It does not say Pro looks better than 2.1, and Sume's docs publish no quality benchmark. Compare outputs on your own prompts.

Google's own numbers

Google's pricing page lists Nano Banana 2.1 at $0.0336 per 1K, $0.0504 per 2K and $0.113 per 4K on Standard (read 2026-10-09), and does not need Sume's rows to be proportional. Sume's catalog is its own price list, so check the model's live pricing line before a large run rather than scaling from Google's page.

Nano Banana 2 is retired on Sume and runs as 2.1, so the 2.1 rows above also apply if an older config still names nano-banana-2.

A decision order

Start with 2.1 at the tier you need. If the result is not good enough, try Pro at 2K, where the premium is 25%. Use Pro at 4K only for finals, where it costs $0.375 against $0.20 for 2.1. A set of 20 finals is $7.50 on Pro and $4.00 on 2.1, so the extra spend for a small final set is $3.50.

That keeps the premium where it buys the most, and it keeps Pro off the hundreds of drafts where cost adds up.