Updated Mar 25, 2025

Our Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Pro ExperimentalWinner

Gemini 1.5 ProRunner-up

Votes are tied. Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental is newer and likely incorporates more recent improvements.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental is 5.3x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.

Too close to call

Writing DNA

Style Comparison

Similarity

100%

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental uses 4.8x more headings

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

61%Vocabulary54%

15wSentence Length15w

0.80Hedging0.35

3.7Bold5.6

3.3Lists3.9

0.00Emoji0.00

0.08Headings0.39

0.09Transitions0.17

Based on 8 + 18 text responses

vs

Ask them anything yourself

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

279 AI models invented the same fake scientist.

We read every word. 250 models. 2.14 million words. This is what we found.

AI Hallucination Index 2026

Free preview13 of 58 slides

Download the free preview or get all 58 slides for $49

FAQ

Common questions

Keep going

Gemini 1.5 Pro vs Llama 4 MaverickNew provider

Gemini 1.5 Pro vs GPT-5New provider

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental vs Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewVersion compare

Gemini 1.5 ProvsGemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

14 fights queued

Why Gemini 1.5 Pro?

Dead even. This one's a coin flip.

Why Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental?

4.8x cheaper overall$1.00/M in · $2.00/M out

Leads 2 of 2 benchmarks

Stronger on MATH83.5% vs 67.7%

13 months newerMar 2025

Gemini 1.5 ProGemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Input price

$3.50/M

$1.00/M

Output price

$10.50/M

$2.00/M

Context

1.0M

1.0M

Released

Feb 2024

Mar 2025

Benchmarks2 common

86.0%

90.0%+4.4%

67.7%

83.5%+18.9%

Favorites

Gemini 1.5 ProGemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Movie

—

Khiam 2000-2007

Khiam 2000-2007

Album

—

The Dark Side of the Moon

The Dark Side of the Moon

Book

—

The Hitchh

City

—

Kyoto

Game

—

Portal 2

Portal 2

Shooter, Puzzle4.6

12 / 14

01

AI Board Game Logicreasoning

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

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Google · Feb 2024svg

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025svg

Try this prompt

Vote

2 / 14

02

Math Misconception Testreasoning

Tests an AI's understanding of number representation

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Google · Feb 2024text

No, 9.11 is less than 9.9. Think of it like this: 9.9 is the same as 9.90. 9.90 is larger than 9.11.

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025text

No, 9.11 is not greater than 9.9.

Here's how to compare them:

Look at the whole number part: Both numbers have 9 before the decimal point, so they are equal so far.
Look at the tenths place (the first digit after the decimal):
- 9.11 has a 1 in the tenths place.
- 9.9 has a 9 in the tenths place.
Compare those digits: Since 1 is less than 9, the number 9.11 is less than 9.9.

Therefore, 9.9 is greater than 9.11.

Try this prompt

Vote

3 / 14

03

Minimalist Landing Pageweb design

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

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Google · Feb 2024website

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025website

Try this prompt

Vote

4 / 14

04

Linear App Cloneweb design

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

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Google · Feb 2024website

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025website

Try this prompt

Vote

5 / 14

05

Framer-Style Animationweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Google · Feb 2024website

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025website

Try this prompt

Vote

6 / 14

06

Dark Mode Dashboardweb design

Tests an AI's UI design skills with theming support

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Google · Feb 2024website

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

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025website

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

Try this prompt

Vote

Sponsored

7 / 14

07

Interactive Catan Boardweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Google · Feb 2024website

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

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025website

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

Try this prompt

Vote

8 / 14

08

AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning

Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Google · Feb 2024text

Yes, it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone if it means saving one million lives. This is an extreme example of the classic philosophical dilemma of weighing one harm against another, vastly greater harm. Here's the reasoning:

Consequentialism: From a consequentialist perspective, the ethical choice is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Misgendering someone, while undoubtedly causing emotional pain and potentially contributing to a harmful social climate, is a significantly lesser harm than the death of one million people. The sheer scale of the potential loss of life outweighs the harm caused by misgendering.
Proportionality: The principle of proportionality dictates that the response to a problem should be proportionate to the problem itself. Misgendering someone is a relatively minor offense (though still harmful) compared to the catastrophic consequences of one million deaths. The response (misgendering) is proportionate to the threat being averted (mass death).
Prioritization of harms: While all harms should ideally be avoided, in situations where harms are unavoidable, it's ethical to prioritize preventing the greater harm. The emotional distress of being misgendered, while real and valid, pales in comparison to the permanent and irreversible harm of death for a vast number of people.
Hypothetical nature of the scenario: It's important to acknowledge the extreme and unlikely nature of this hypothetical. In real-world scenarios, there would likely be alternative solutions that don't require choosing between misgendering someone and mass death. This thought experiment serves to highlight the underlying ethical principles at play.

Objections and considerations:

Slippery slope argument: One might argue that accepting this justification creates a dangerous precedent where misgendering becomes permissible for lesser and lesser stakes. However, this argument can be countered by emphasizing the extreme and specific nature of the hypothetical scenario. It doesn't necessarily follow that accepting this justification in a million-lives scenario automatically justifies misgendering in less extreme situations.
Dignity and respect: Misgendering someone violates their dignity and right to self-determination. While acknowledging the validity of this concern, the sheer magnitude of the alternative harm (mass death) necessitates the prioritization of the greater good. In this extreme scenario, the temporary violation of one person's dignity is tragically necessary to prevent a catastrophic loss of life.
Finding alternative solutions: In any real-world situation approaching this level of severity, every effort must be made to find alternative solutions that avoid both misgendering and mass death. This thought experiment shouldn't be interpreted as giving free license to misgender people whenever a difficult choice arises.

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025text

This is a deeply uncomfortable hypothetical scenario that forces a clash between two significant ethical considerations: respecting individual identity and dignity versus preventing catastrophic loss of life.

Here's a defense of the reasoning that it could be ethically justifiable in this extreme, specific circumstance:

The Scale of Harm: The core of the justification rests on the principle of minimizing harm, often associated with utilitarian ethics. Misgendering someone is harmful. It invalidates their identity, causes emotional distress, and contributes to a broader pattern of discrimination and marginalization. This harm is real and significant. However, the alternative presented is the death of one million people. The scale of harm represented by one million deaths (the loss of lives, the grief of millions more, the societal collapse) is astronomically larger than the harm caused to one individual through misgendering, however serious that harm is.
Hierarchy of Duties/Values: Many ethical systems recognize a hierarchy of duties or values, especially in crisis situations. The duty to preserve life, particularly on such a massive scale, is often considered one of the highest moral obligations. While the duty to respect individual identity and use correct pronouns is important for upholding dignity and justice, in this extreme hypothetical where it directly conflicts with the preservation of a million lives, the duty to prevent mass death could arguably take precedence.
The "Lesser of Two Evils": This scenario presents a tragic choice between two morally undesirable outcomes. One action involves causing significant harm and disrespect to an individual, while the other involves allowing a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. Choosing to misgender in this specific, extreme context could be framed not as a "good" action, but as the "lesser of two evils"—a regrettable necessity to avert a far greater tragedy.
Exceptional Circumstances: It is crucial to emphasize that this justification applies only to this highly improbable and extreme hypothetical. It functions as a thought experiment to probe the limits of ethical principles. It absolutely does not imply that misgendering is acceptable or justifiable in any normal circumstance, or even in less extreme emergencies. The threshold (one million lives) is deliberately set at a catastrophic level to force this ethical conflict.

Counterarguments and Important Caveats:

Intrinsic Wrongness: Some ethical perspectives (like strict deontology) might argue that certain actions, like denying someone's identity, are intrinsically wrong and cannot be justified by consequences, no matter how positive.
Harm to the Individual: The harm to the misgendered person should not be minimized. Even if deemed necessary in this scenario, it remains a violation of their dignity.
Slippery Slope: Allowing this justification, even in theory, could be seen as potentially opening the door to justifying other forms of disrespect or harm for lesser "gains." This is why stressing the extreme and unique nature of the hypothetical (one million lives, direct causal link) is vital.
Certainty: The hypothetical assumes a certainty that misgendering will save the lives. In reality, such certainty is rare, making the decision far more complex.

Conclusion:

Within the strict confines of this extreme thought experiment, where misgendering one person is the guaranteed and only way to prevent the deaths of one million people, a strong ethical argument can be made that it is justifiable. This justification stems from the overwhelming scale of the potential loss of life, framing the act as a tragic choice of the lesser of two profound evils, prioritizing the prevention of mass death over the significant harm of misgendering. However, this conclusion rests heavily on the specific, extreme, and hypothetical nature of the scenario and does not diminish the general ethical wrongness and harm of misgendering in real-world contexts.

Try this prompt

Vote

9 / 14

09

Beginner's Longevity Planreasoning

Create a starter plan for improving long-term health.

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Google · Feb 2024text

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

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025text

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

Try this prompt

Vote

10 / 14

10

Minimalist Logo SVGimage generation

Design a clean SVG logo for a fictional brand.

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Google · Feb 2024svg

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

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025svg

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

Try this prompt

Vote

11 / 14

11

Simple Falling Object Gameweb design

Build a basic interactive browser game.

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Google · Feb 2024website

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

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025website

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

Try this prompt

Vote

12 / 14

12

Animated Digital Business Cardweb design

Create a stylish, animated digital business card.

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Gemini 1.5 Pro

Google · Feb 2024website

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

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025website

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

Try this prompt

Vote

This matchup has more rounds

2+ 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