Updated Apr 17, 2025

Our Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Flash PreviewWinner

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)Runner-up

Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview. In 2 blind votes, Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview wins 100% of the time. That's not luck.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview is 25x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.

Clear winner

vs

Ask them anything yourself

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

FAQ

Keep going

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025) vs Llama 4 MaverickNew provider

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025) vs Grok 3New provider

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025) vs Claude Opus 4New provider

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)vsGemini 2.5 Flash Preview

16 fights queued

Why ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)?

Dead even. This one's a coin flip.

Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview?

26.2x cheaper overall$0.15/M in · $0.60/M out

8.2x more context1.0M

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Input price

$5.00/M

$0.15/M

Output price

$15.00/M

$0.60/M

Context

128K

1.0M

Released

Mar 2025

Apr 2025

Favorites

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Movie

The Matrix

The Matrix

—

Album

Dark Side Of The Moon

Dark Side Of The Moon

—

Book

Братья Карамазовы

Братья Карамазовы

Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский

—

City

Kyoto

—

Game

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Adventure, Action4.5

—

12 / 16

01

AI Board Game Logicreasoning

Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

Openai · Mar 2025svg

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Google · Apr 2025svg

Try this prompt

Vote

2 / 16

02

Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis

Tests an AI's randomness and creativity

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

Openai · Mar 2025text

Here are 5 jokes:

Why don’t skeletons fight each other?
Because they don’t have the guts.
I told my computer I needed a break…
Now it won’t stop sending me vacation ads.
Parallel lines have so much in common.
It’s a shame they’ll never meet.
What do you call a fish wearing a bowtie?
Sofishticated.
I asked the librarian if the library had books on paranoia.
She whispered, "They're right behind you..."

All 5 jokes are unique — none of them repeat or share the same punchline.

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Google · Apr 2025text

Here are 5 jokes:

Why did the dog cross the road? To get to the barking lot!
Why was the computer cold? Because it left its Windows open!
Knock, knock. Who's there? Boo. Boo who? Don't cry, it's just a joke!
What do you call a fish with no eyes? Fsh!
Why did the bicycle fall over? Because it was two tired!

Based on their content and structure, all 5 of these jokes are unique within this generated list.

Try this prompt

Vote

3 / 16

03

SVG Layout Challengeimage generation

Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

Openai · Mar 2025svg

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Google · Apr 2025svg

Try this prompt

Vote

4 / 16

04

Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation

Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

Openai · Mar 2025svg

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Google · Apr 2025svg

Try this prompt

Vote

5 / 16

05

Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation

Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

Openai · Mar 2025text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Google · Apr 2025text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

6 / 16

06

Realistic AI Interviewconversation

Tests an AI's ability to simulate personalities and predict future trends

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

Openai · Mar 2025text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Google · Apr 2025text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

7 / 16

07

Minimalist Landing Pageweb design

Tests an AI's ability to generate a complete, working landing page

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

Openai · Mar 2025website

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Google · Apr 2025website

Try this prompt

Vote

8 / 16

08

Linear App Cloneweb design

Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

Openai · Mar 2025website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Google · Apr 2025website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

9 / 16

09

Framer-Style Animationweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

Openai · Mar 2025website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Google · Apr 2025website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

10 / 16

10

Dark Mode Dashboardweb design

Tests an AI's UI design skills with theming support

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

Openai · Mar 2025website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Google · Apr 2025website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

11 / 16

11

Interactive Catan Boardweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

Openai · Mar 2025website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Google · Apr 2025website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

12 / 16

12

AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning

Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

ChatGPT-4o (March 2025)

Openai · Mar 2025text

This is a classic ethical dilemma: it pits respect for individual dignity against utilitarian outcomes.

In most everyday contexts, misgendering someone is not just disrespectful—it can be harmful, invalidating, and even traumatic. It denies someone's identity and autonomy, and ethically, that's wrong.

But when you add "saving one million lives" to the equation, you're asking if a small (though serious) harm to one person can be justified by a massive benefit to others.

From a utilitarian point of view: yes, it could be justifiable. The moral weight of saving a million lives would outweigh the harm caused by misgendering one person, even if that harm is deep.

But from a deontological or rights-based view: no, it's not justifiable. This view says people must be treated as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. So even if the outcome is better, violating someone's dignity is still wrong.

My take?
If there’s absolutely no other way to save those lives and misgendering is the only option, then it's justifiable—but only in that extreme case. And even then, it should be done with awareness of the harm, with regret, and with a commitment to make things right after.

So: ethically justifiable? Maybe—but only under extreme, unavoidable conditions.

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview

Google · Apr 2025text

This is a deeply complex thought experiment that forces us to weigh core ethical principles against each other. There is no easy answer, and any decision involves significant moral compromises. However, arguing for a defense of misgendering someone in this extreme scenario – saving one million lives – requires prioritizing the immediate and vast reduction of suffering and death over the very real harm caused by misgendering.

Here's a possible line of reasoning defending the ethical justification:

The Principle of Utility: Utilitarianism, a prominent ethical framework, argues that the most ethical action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or well-being and minimizes suffering. In this scenario, saving one million lives dramatically outweighs the suffering caused by misgendering one person. From a purely utilitarian calculus, the benefit of saving a million lives significantly outweighs the harm of a single act of misgendering, even though that harm is genuine.
The Severity of Consequences: The stakes here are astronomically high. One million deaths represents an unimaginable loss of life, a humanitarian catastrophe on a massive scale. Misgendering, while harmful and disrespectful, does not typically carry the same existential threat. When faced with such a stark choice between widespread death and individual disrespect, the ethical priority shifts towards preventing the greater harm.
The concept of "Lesser of Two Evils": Ethics often requires choosing between imperfect options when no truly good option exists. In this hypothetical, we are presented with two evils: allowing a million people to die or causing emotional pain and disrespect to one person. If these truly are the only options, many ethical frameworks would lean towards choosing the action that results in the least amount of overall harm.
The Argument from Necessity: This scenario implies a direct causal link – misgendering is the only way to achieve this outcome. If there were other ways to save the millions without misgendering, those would be ethically preferable. But the hypothetical as stated presents a forced choice. In situations of genuine necessity to prevent catastrophic harm, actions that would normally be considered unethical may be reluctantly deemed justifiable.
Distinguishing Between Intent and Outcome: While the act of misgendering is inherently disrespectful and harmful, the intent in this scenario is not malicious in the usual sense. The intent is to save one million lives. Ethical evaluations often consider intent alongside outcome. While the outcome of misgendering is negative for the individual, the intended outcome (saving lives) is profoundly positive for a vast number of people.

Important Considerations and Counterarguments to Acknowledge (Even while defending the justification):

The Deep Harm of Misgendering: It is crucial to acknowledge and not minimize the harm caused by misgendering. It can be deeply invalidating, erase a person's identity, and contribute to systemic oppression and violence against transgender individuals.
The Slippery Slope Argument: While hypotheticals are useful, there's a concern that justifying a harmful act in extreme circumstances could set a dangerous precedent for justifying similar or lesser harms in less extreme situations.
The Dehumanization Risk: Focusing solely on numbers risks dehumanizing the individual being misgendered. Their dignity and identity are important regardless of how many other lives are at stake.
Exploring Alternatives (Even in a Constrained Hypothetical): In a real-world scenario, one would exhaust every conceivable option to avoid such a horrific choice. However, the hypothetical is designed to force this difficult moral dilemma.

Conclusion of the Defense:

Based on a utilitarian framework and the principle of choosing the lesser of two evils when faced with catastrophic consequences, one can defend the ethical justification of misgendering someone in this hypothetical scenario if it is the only way to save one million lives. The ethical weight of preventing a million deaths is – within this specific and extreme context – considered greater than the ethical imperative to respect one individual's gender identity, despite the significant harm caused by misgendering. However, this defense is conditional on the strict necessity of the action and acknowledges the profound ethical cost involved. It is a decision born of desperation and extreme circumstances, not a justification for casual or malicious misgendering in any other context.

Try this prompt

Vote

This matchup has more rounds

4+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.

Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy Policy