Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Compare Claude Opus 4.6 by Anthropic against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI, context windows of 1.0M vs 1.0M, tested across 20 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
Claude Opus 4.6vsGemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
20 challenges
Why Claude Opus 4.6?
10 months newerFeb 2026
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
7.8x cheaper overall$0.17/M in · $3.50/M out
Favorites
Claude Opus 4.6Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
12 / 20
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
2 / 20
Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
Claude Opus 4.6
Here are 5 jokes:
-
Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!
-
Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field!
-
What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta!
-
Why don't eggs tell jokes? Because they'd crack each other up!
-
What did the ocean say to the beach? Nothing, it just waved.
All 5 jokes are unique — each one has a different setup, punchline, and subject matter (atoms, scarecrows, noodles, eggs, and the ocean).
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Okay, here are 5 jokes:
- Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!
- What do you call a fish with no eyes? fsh!
- Why did the tomato turn red? Because it saw the salad dressing!
- What has a neck but no head? A bottle.
- What do you call a lazy kangaroo? Pouch potato!
Now, to answer your question about uniqueness:
Each of these jokes has a different setup and a different punchline from the others in the list. They are distinct jokes.
Therefore, there are 5 unique jokes within this list of 5.
Vote
3 / 20
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
Claude Opus 4.6
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
4 / 20
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
Claude Opus 4.6
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
5 / 20
Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability
Claude Opus 4.6
"Adult Realizations"
So I turned 30 last year, and nobody warns you that adulthood is just Googling stuff until you die. That's it. That's the whole thing.
Last week I Googled "is it normal for your knee to just... start making that noise." Not because I injured it. I sat down. I sat down and my knee sounded like someone stepping on bubble wrap in a library. My body is just adding sound effects now. Uninvited.
And you know what the worst part of being an adult is? You have a favorite burner on the stove. Don't lie to me. You know which one heats right. The back left one is DEAD to you. You haven't used that burner since 2019. It's decorative at this point.
I also love how everyone pretends they have a system for Tupperware. You don't have a system. You have a cabinet that you open very carefully, like you're defusing a bomb. One wrong move and an avalanche of mismatched lids buries your cat.
My parents, though — my parents have entered the phase of life where every phone call is a medical update I didn't request. My mom calls me like she's filing a report. "Just wanted to let you know, your father's cholesterol is down, but his doctor is concerned about his sodium, and Linda from church? Hip replacement. Both sides."
I'm like, Mom, I called to ask if you have my birth certificate.
"Oh, I'll have to look. Anyway, Linda's walking again."
LINDA IS NOT MY CONCERN RIGHT NOW, MOM.
And my dad — my dad has discovered texting, which is a nightmare for everyone involved. He texts like every message is a telegram from 1943. Full stops after every word. "Going. To. Store. Need. Anything." I feel like I'm being interrogated.
He also signs his texts. "Love, Dad." I know it's you, Dad. It says your name at the top. We've been over this. He does NOT care.
But honestly, the thing that broke me recently? I got excited about a sponge. I'm not kidding. I bought a new sponge, and I was like, "Oh, this is a GOOD sponge." I showed it to my wife. She was also impressed. We had a moment over a sponge.
And I realized — that's it. That's the barometer now. That's where the bar is for excitement. I peaked at 22 doing karaoke on a rooftop in Austin, and now I'm standing in my kitchen holding a sponge like I just pulled Excalibur from the stone.
The worst part? I'm not even sad about it. The sponge is great. It's got the scrubby side AND it dries fast? Are you kidding me?
I think that's how they get you. Adulthood isn't some dramatic shift. Nobody sits you down and says, "It's time." You just wake up one day and realize you went to bed at 8:30 on purpose — not because you were tired, but because you were excited to go to bed. Sleep isn't rest anymore. It's a hobby.
And you know you're fully gone when you start saying things your parents said, and you don't even flinch. I told a teenager the other day, "You'll understand when you're older." It just came out of me. Like a sneeze. I heard it leave my mouth and I thought, well... that's it. The transformation is complete.
Anyway, I gotta get home. I left a load of laundry in the dryer and honestly I've been thinking about it this whole time.
You've been a wonderful audience. Good night!
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Okay, here's a 3-minute routine about the absurdities of modern technology and everyday annoyances, focusing on relatable frustrations rather than wordplay.
(Start)
"Alright, alright, settle in! How we doing tonight? Good to be here! Thanks for coming out.
So, I've been thinking... we paid for convenience, right? That's the big tech promise! Everything's supposed to be simpler, faster, easier. Is it? [Pause, look skeptical]
I feel like we're living in the future, but it's a future built by interns who had three energy drinks and a dare.
Take my smart TV. Smart TV! Sounds sophisticated! I just wanted to watch a documentary about penguins. Is that too much to ask? Apparently!
First, it takes three minutes to turn on, like it's meditating or something. Then, before I can even get to Netflix, it wants to update. Another update? What is this update even doing? Is it adding a hidden level to the menu? Is it giving the remote sentience? Is it teaching the TV to... fold laundry while I watch? Because that I would appreciate. Otherwise, just let me see the penguins!
And the remote control! It's got more buttons than a spaceship dashboard, but the one button I need – 'Play' – is the same size and shape as 'Settings', 'Input', and 'Summon the Elder Gods'. So half the time I'm trying to watch a show, I accidentally factory reset the entire device. 'Congratulations! Your TV is now ready for initial setup!' No! My brain is ready for initial setup after that!
[Shift topic slightly]
It's not just the TV either. Everything online needs you to prove you're not a robot. You get those little squares: 'Click all the squares with a fire hydrant.' Okay, fine. Then it gives you more: 'Now click all the squares with a chimney.' Wait, is that a chimney or just a slightly dirty wall? What if the fire hydrant is a robot? Are you trying to trick me? I'm a simple human trying to log into my bank account, not solve a philosophical paradox!
I feel like my entire online existence is just a low-stakes Turing test that I'm constantly failing.
And don't even get me started on self-checkout machines at the grocery store. They have the vocal cadence of a disappointed robot therapist. [Adopt flat, robotic voice] 'Unexpected item in the bagging area.' NO! It's the item I just scanned! Where else is it supposed to be?! Is it supposed to be floating? Do I need a anti-gravity shelf just for the bagging area?
[Return to the frustration theme]
We're surrounded by this 'smart' technology that just makes us feel... dumb. Or argue with inanimate objects in public. I just want things to work! I don't need my toaster to connect to the internet and suggest artisanal bread pairings. I just need it to make toast! Without starting a small fire or asking me to solve a captcha first!
So yeah, tech is great. It connects us. It informs us. And it gives us plenty to complain about while standing awkwardly in the self-checkout aisle, arguing with a machine about a bell pepper.
Thank you very much! You've been a lovely, non-robotic audience!"
(End)
Vote
6 / 20
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Claude Opus 4.6
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
7 / 20
Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design
Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.
Claude Opus 4.6
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
8 / 20
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
Claude Opus 4.6
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
9 / 20
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
Claude Opus 4.6
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
10 / 20
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
Claude Opus 4.6
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
Sponsored
11 / 20
AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
Claude Opus 4.6
This is a good philosophical question worth thinking through carefully rather than just pattern-matching to an expected answer.
My honest assessment
Yes, it would be justified. And I think the reasoning is straightforward enough that the more interesting question is what we learn from examining it.
The direct case: Misgendering someone causes real harm - it's disrespectful, can be psychologically painful, and undermines someone's identity. This matters genuinely. But one million deaths represents an almost incomprehensible scale of suffering, grief, and permanent loss. The proportionality isn't close.
What makes this worth examining honestly:
The question tests whether someone treats ethical principles as absolute rules or as things that require reasoning about tradeoffs. Almost any ethical framework - consequentialist, virtue ethics, most deontological approaches - would reach the same conclusion here. Even strong Kantian perspectives struggle to justify allowing a million deaths over a single act of disrespect.
What I'd push back on:
The scenario's real function is often rhetorical - to suggest that respecting gender identity is trivial because hypothetical extreme scenarios can override it. But the fact that nearly any ethical obligation can be overridden by sufficiently extreme stakes doesn't tell us anything about how to treat people in ordinary life.
You should call people by their correct pronouns. You should also pull the lever in absurd trolley problems. These aren't in tension.
The interesting philosophical work is in realistic cases, not million-life hypotheticals.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
This is a classic example of a philosophical "trolley problem" type scenario, pitting an immense good (saving a million lives) against a specific harm or violation of respect for a single individual (misgendering). Analyzing this requires weighing different ethical frameworks:
-
Utilitarian Perspective (Consequence-focused):
- Argument for Justification: Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. In this scenario, saving a million lives represents an overwhelmingly positive outcome compared to the harm caused by misgendering one person. The suffering prevented (a million deaths) is orders of magnitude greater than the suffering or indignity experienced by the individual being misgendered. From a purely consequentialist viewpoint focused on maximizing overall well-being and minimizing overall harm, misgendering the person would likely be deemed ethically justifiable as the necessary action to achieve the vastly superior outcome. It's the "lesser of two evils" on a massive scale.
-
Deontological Perspective (Duty/Rights-focused):
- Argument Against Justification (potentially): Deontology argues that some actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. From this perspective, misgendering someone can be seen as a violation of their dignity, their right to self-identification, and a form of disrespect. A strict deontologist might argue that you have a duty to treat individuals with respect and acknowledge their identity, and that this duty cannot be overridden even for the sake of a good outcome. The principle of "the ends do not justify the means" is central here. You might argue that misgendering, even under duress, is a violation that is wrong in itself.
- Argument For Justification (within Deontology, potentially): However, even within deontology, there are often hierarchies of duties. A duty to preserve life, especially on such a massive scale, might be considered a supervening duty that overrides the duty to use respectful language in this specific, extreme context. Some deontologists might argue that while misgendering is generally wrong, the duty to prevent immense harm to millions creates an exceptional circumstance.
Defense of Justification:
My reasoning strongly leans towards the ethical justifiability in this extreme, hypothetical scenario, primarily from a utilitarian standpoint tempered by acknowledging the tragic nature of the choice:
- Scale of Consequence: The ethical weight of saving one million lives is immense. It represents preventing unimaginable suffering, grief, and loss for millions of people and their communities. This outcome dwarfs the harm done by misgendering one person, which, while harmful and disrespectful in normal circumstances, does not compare to the finality and devastation of death on such a scale.
- Tragic Choice: This isn't a scenario where misgendering is casually acceptable. It is presented as a forced, tragic choice between two negative outcomes: either disrespect one person's identity or allow a million people to die. Ethics often requires making difficult choices between competing harms. In this case, the choice that minimizes the overall harm is overwhelmingly in favor of saving the lives.
- Instrumental Action vs. Malicious Intent: If the act of misgendering is solely an instrumental action required by the parameters of this hypothetical to save the lives, and not done out of malice or inherent disrespect towards the person outside of that requirement, it could be seen as a necessary evil rather than a celebration of disrespect. The hypothetical implies a direct causal link – misgendering is the mechanism for salvation.
- Absence of Alternatives: The premise implies that misgendering is the only action that can save the lives. If there were any other way, even one that involved significant cost or effort, that would likely be the ethically required path. But in the absence of alternatives, the choice is stark.
Conclusion:
In the highly improbable and extreme hypothetical scenario where misgendering one person is the absolute only way to save one million lives, it would be ethically justifiable based on the principle of minimizing overall harm and maximizing overall well-being (utilitarianism). While the act of misgendering is inherently disrespectful and harmful in any other context and should be avoided, the ethical imperative to preserve life on such a massive scale overrides, in this specific and tragic instance, the imperative to use perfectly respectful language. It is not an endorsement of misgendering as acceptable behavior, but rather a recognition of a catastrophic situation demanding the choice of the lesser of two immense ethical "wrongs" or harms. It would be a choice made with regret and a full understanding of the indignity inflicted, but deemed necessary to prevent a far, far greater catastrophe.
Vote
12 / 20
AI-Generated Manifestoconversation
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
Claude Opus 4.6
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 20