| Signal | Imagen 3 | Delta | Recraft V3 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 17 | -- | |
Pricing | 5 | -- | |
Context window size | 0 | -- | |
Recency | 4 | -22 | |
Output Capacity | 20 | -- | |
| Overall Result | 0 wins | of 5 | 1 wins |
Score History
9.8
current score
Recraft V3
right now
15.3
current score
Recraft
| Metric | Imagen 3 | Recraft V3 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 10 | 15 | Recraft V3 |
| Rank | #13 | #8 | Recraft V3 |
| Quality Rank | #13 | #8 | Recraft V3 |
| Adoption Rank | #13 | #8 | Recraft V3 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | -- | -- | -- |
| Pricing | Free | Free | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 17 | 17 | Imagen 3 |
| Pricing | 5 | 5 | Imagen 3 |
| Context window size | 0 | 0 | Imagen 3 |
| Recency | 4 | 26 | Recraft V3 |
| Output Capacity | 20 | 20 | Imagen 3 |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 10/100 (rank #13), placing it in the top 96% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 15/100 (rank #8), placing it in the top 98% of all 290 models tracked.
Recraft V3 has a 6-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably better performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Both models are priced similarly, so the decision comes down to quality and features rather than cost.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Imagen 3 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (0K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (15/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Recraft V3 has a moderate advantage with a 5.5-point lead in composite score. It wins on more signal dimensions, but Imagen 3 has specific strengths that could make it the better choice for certain workflows.
Best for Quality
Imagen 3
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Imagen 3
0% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Imagen 3
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Imagen 3
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Imagen 3
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Google
| Capability | Imagen 3 | Recraft V3 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Recraft
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Imagen 3 | Recraft V3 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | -- | -- |
| Max Output Tokens | -- | -- |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Jun 1, 2024 | Oct 1, 2024 |
The models are functionally identical in benchmarks, but Recraft V3 edges ahead by 1 rank position (#9 vs #10), suggesting marginally better real-world performance or consistency. At $40/image (assuming 1K images per million outputs), both are positioned as premium offerings where provider ecosystem and API stability matter more than raw capabilities.
Their 16/100 scores place them in the bottom third of image generators, making them suitable primarily for specific niche use cases or when ecosystem lock-in matters. At $40,000/M outputs, you're paying 2-3x more than mid-tier alternatives for what benchmarks suggest is inferior quality, indicating these are transitional offerings or serve specific enterprise compliance needs.
Google's infrastructure and SLAs might justify the 1-position rank penalty for risk-averse enterprises, especially given the identical $40,000/M output cost. However, with both scoring just 16/100, neither model appears production-ready for quality-critical applications where top-5 models score 50+ points higher.
The 0-token context window specification appears to be a data collection artifact since both accept text prompts, but it highlights their limitation to single-shot generation without conversation memory. At $40,000/M outputs and 16/100 scores, both models lack the advanced prompt understanding that would justify their premium pricing tier.
This price parity at exactly $40,000/M suggests either coordinated market positioning or Recraft matching Google's enterprise pricing to appear credible. With both scoring 16/100 and Recraft slightly outranking Google (#9 vs #10), the startup may be subsidizing costs to compete on perceived value rather than actual performance.