Imagen 4
Imagen 4

Imagen 4 vs Imagen 3: The Ultimate AI Image Generator

on 24 days ago

imagen4

Google just dropped Imagen 4, and everyone’s asking the same question: Is it actually better than Imagen 3? After spending weeks testing both models side-by-side, I’ve got the definitive answer—and it might surprise you.

The Imagen 4 vs Imagen 3 debate isn’t just about pixel quality. It’s about whether Google’s latest AI image generator can justify its 50% price increase while competing against established players like DALL-E 3 and Midjourney 7.

Here’s what I discovered after generating over 200 test images across both platforms.

What Makes Imagen 4 Different from Imagen 3?

Google unveiled Imagen 4 at I/O 2025 with bold promises: enhanced photorealism, better text rendering, and “significantly improved” prompt adherence. But marketing claims are one thing—real-world performance is another.

Key Technical Improvements

Resolution and Quality:

  • Imagen 4: Up to 2K resolution with enhanced color rendering
  • Imagen 3: Standard HD output with solid but limited detail reproduction

Processing Speed:

  • Imagen 4: Claims 10x faster generation in upcoming ultra-fast mode
  • Imagen 3: Baseline processing speeds (typically 15-30 seconds per image)

Prompt Understanding:

  • Imagen 4: Enhanced natural language processing for complex instructions
  • Imagen 3: Good but sometimes struggles with multi-element scenes

Pricing Breakdown: Is Imagen 4 Worth the Premium?

Let’s talk numbers. Google introduced a two-tier pricing structure that changes the game:

Model Price per Image Best For
Imagen 4 Standard $0.04 General image generation tasks
Imagen 4 Ultra $0.06 Precise prompt following, professional use
Imagen 3 $0.027* Budget-conscious users, basic needs

*Estimated based on previous Google AI pricing

The 50% price jump for Imagen 4 Ultra raises an important question: Does the quality improvement justify the cost?

Real-World Testing: Where Each Model Excels

I ran identical prompts through both systems to see how they actually perform. The results were… mixed.

Test 1: Complex Scene Generation

Prompt: “Military base with soldiers preparing for war, detailed faces, realistic lighting”

Imagen 3 Result: Clean execution with recognizable facial features and proper military equipment placement.

Imagen 4 Result: Better environmental detail but “mushed and mangled” faces that looked unrealistic.

Winner: Imagen 3

This was unexpected. Despite Google’s claims about improved detail rendering, Imagen 4 struggled with character consistency in complex scenes.

Test 2: Single Subject Focus

Prompt: “Lady by the river using fish-eye lens perspective”

Imagen 3 Result: Proper anatomy, single subject, good lens distortion effect.

Imagen 4 Result: Generated a woman with three hands—a significant anatomical error.

Winner: Imagen 3

The multi-limb issue suggests Imagen 4’s training data might have some consistency problems that weren’t present in Imagen 3.

Test 3: Detailed Technical Prompt

Prompt: “Futuristic dark vehicle hovering above neon-lit cityscape at night, rain effects, cyberpunk aesthetic, low-angle perspective”

Imagen 4 Result: Stunning execution capturing every detail with video game-quality rendering.

Imagen 3 Result: Good but lacking the intricate lighting effects and atmospheric details.

Winner: Imagen 4

Here’s where Imagen 4 shines. With highly detailed, specific prompts, it produces exceptional results that surpass its predecessor.

Test 4: Typography and Text Integration

Prompt: “Retro movie poster about sharks with bold title design”

Imagen 4 Result: Excellent visual style but incomplete text rendering.

Imagen 3 Result: Better text legibility but less sophisticated visual design.

Winner: Draw (different strengths)

The Prompting Strategy That Changes Everything

After extensive testing, I discovered something crucial: Imagen 4 requires a completely different prompting approach than Imagen 3.

Imagen 3 Prompting Style:

  • Short, direct instructions work well
  • “Cat sitting on windowsill” produces reliable results
  • Handles simple concepts effectively

Imagen 4 Prompting Style:

  • Detailed, specific instructions yield better outcomes
  • “Tabby cat with orange and black stripes sitting on white wooden windowsill, afternoon sunlight, shallow depth of field” produces superior results
  • Struggles with vague or simple prompts

This isn’t necessarily better or worse—it’s different. However, it does create a steeper learning curve for users transitioning from Imagen 3.

Feature Comparison: Side-by-Side Analysis

Image Quality and Resolution

Imagen 4 Advantages:

  • 2K resolution support
  • Enhanced texture rendering (fabric, water, fur)
  • Improved color accuracy and vibrancy
  • Better handling of lighting effects

Imagen 3 Strengths:

  • Consistent quality across different prompt types
  • More predictable results
  • Better character anatomy in complex scenes

Speed and Efficiency

Imagen 4 promises significant speed improvements, with Google claiming up to 10x faster generation in the upcoming ultra-fast mode. Currently, both models perform similarly in terms of generation time.

Artistic Style Range

Both models support multiple artistic styles, from photorealistic to abstract. However, Imagen 4 shows more sophisticated handling of:

  • Cinematic lighting
  • Advanced textures
  • Complex atmospheric effects

When to Choose Imagen 4 vs Imagen 3

Choose Imagen 4 If You:

  • Need maximum image resolution (2K output)
  • Work with highly detailed, specific prompts
  • Require advanced texture and lighting effects
  • Can justify the 50% price increase
  • Create professional-grade visual content

Stick with Imagen 3 If You:

  • Use simple, straightforward prompts
  • Need consistent character rendering
  • Work on a tight budget
  • Prefer predictable, reliable results
  • Generate images for basic use cases

Competitive Landscape: How Do They Stack Up?

Neither Imagen 4 nor Imagen 3 currently leads the AI image generation market. Here’s how they compare to top competitors:

Market Leaders:

  • DALL-E 3: Superior prompt understanding and consistency
  • Midjourney 7: Best artistic quality and style variety

Google’s Position:

  • Imagen 4: Competitive but not market-leading
  • Imagen 3: Solid mid-tier option with good value

The reality? Google’s still playing catch-up in the AI image generation space, despite significant technical improvements.

The Verdict: Evolution, Not Revolution

After extensive testing, Imagen 4 represents incremental improvement rather than revolutionary change. It excels in specific scenarios—particularly with detailed prompts and technical image generation—but falls short in others where Imagen 3 actually performs better.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Imagen 4 isn’t universally better than Imagen 3
  2. Prompting strategy matters more with the newer model
  3. Price-to-performance ratio favors Imagen 3 for most users
  4. Professional applications may justify Imagen 4’s premium pricing

Making Your Decision

The choice between Imagen 4 vs Imagen 3 depends entirely on your specific needs and budget. For most users, Imagen 3 offers better value and more consistent results. However, if you’re creating professional content with detailed specifications, Imagen 4’s enhanced capabilities might justify the additional cost.

Before committing to either platform, I recommend testing both with your typical use cases. Google offers limited free testing through AI Studio, making it easy to compare performance with your actual prompts.

The AI image generation landscape continues evolving rapidly. While Imagen 4 shows promise, it’s not the game-changer Google positioned it to be. Sometimes, the previous generation is still the smarter choice.

Looking to optimize your AI image generation workflow? Check out our comprehensive guide to [AI image generation best practices] for advanced techniques that work across all major platforms.