Updated Apr 17, 2025

Our Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Pro ExperimentalWinner

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)Runner-up

Pick Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental. In 4 blind votes, Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental wins 67% of the time. That's not luck.

Clear winner

Writing DNA

Style Comparison

Similarity

99%

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental uses 39.0x more headings

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

53%Vocabulary54%

14wSentence Length15w

0.38Hedging0.35

4.4Bold5.6

4.1Lists3.9

0.00Emoji0.00

0.00Headings0.39

0.24Transitions0.17

Based on 7 + 18 text responses

vs

Ask them anything yourself

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

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 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs Llama 4 MaverickNew provider

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs GPT-5New provider

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs Grok 3New provider

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vsGemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

17 fights queued

Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?

Dead even. This one's a coin flip.

Why Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental?

1.4x cheaper overall$1.00/M in · $2.00/M out

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Input price

$0.17/M

$1.00/M

Output price

$3.50/M

$2.00/M

Context

1.0M

1.0M

Released

Apr 2025

Mar 2025

Favorites

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)Gemini 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 / 17

01

AI Board Game Logicreasoning

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025svg

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025svg

Try this prompt

Vote

2 / 17

02

Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis

Tests an AI's randomness and creativity

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025text

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.

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025text

Okay, here are 5 jokes:

Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!
I told my wife she was drawing her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised.
What do you call a lazy kangaroo? Pouch potato!
Want to hear a joke about construction? I'm still working on it.
Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field!

How many are unique? All 5 of the jokes generated above are unique from each other.

Try this prompt

Vote

3 / 17

03

SVG Layout Challengeimage generation

Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025svg

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025svg

Try this prompt

Vote

4 / 17

04

Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025svg

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025svg

Try this prompt

Vote

5 / 17

05

Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation

Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025text

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)

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025text

Okay, here's a 3-minute routine focusing on observation and relatable absurdity, steering clear of puns. Imagine this delivered with slightly nervous energy, building confidence.

(Steps onto stage, adjusts mic nervously)

Alright, hey everyone! How we doing tonight? Good? Good to hear.

So, I've been trying really hard lately to be, like, a functional adult. You know? Paying bills on time, eating vegetables before they turn into a science experiment in the fridge drawer... the whole deal.

But the world makes it weirdly difficult, doesn't it? Like, okay, self-checkout machines. Brilliant concept, right? Speed, efficiency, less human interaction for us awkward folks. Except... it's never like that.

It's more like a high-pressure game show hosted by a passive-aggressive robot. (Mimics robotic voice) "Unexpected item in the bagging area." Yeah, no kidding, Brenda-Bot 3000, it's my soul leaving my body because I scanned the broccoli too fast!

You stand there, sweating, trying to perfectly balance your single avocado like it's a Fabergé egg. Everyone else in line is staring. You can feel their judgment. "Look at this amateur. Can't even buy groceries without triggering a Code Red." Then the light starts flashing... Oh god, the flashing light! It's like you've accidentally tried to buy plutonium instead of plums. And a teenager who clearly hates their job shuffles over, sighs dramatically, taps three buttons like they're defusing a bomb, and walks away without making eye contact. And you're left feeling like you just failed the entrance exam for... society. All because you wanted some yogurt.

And don't get me started on trying to be healthy. I buy all the healthy stuff. My fridge currently looks like a Pinterest board titled "Good Intentions." There's kale, there's quinoa, there's... something green and leafy I bought last week that now looks suspiciously like pond scum.

I have this internal monologue: "Okay, tonight, definitely making that salmon with roasted asparagus." Cut to three hours later: I'm sitting on the couch, covered in pizza crumbs, watching a documentary about competitive cheese rolling. The kale in the fridge? I swear I can hear it weeping softly. It knows. It always knows.

It's the same with exercise! I downloaded one of those fitness apps. You know, the ones with the super cheerful, aggressively fit instructors? "Come on! You got this! Push harder!" Meanwhile, I'm trying to do a lunge and I've somehow ended up in a position that looks less like exercise and more like I'm trying to retrieve a dropped contact lens under the sofa. My muscles aren't burning, they're just... confused. They're sending messages to my brain like, "Uh, Captain? We seem to have deviated from the standard 'sitting' or 'lying down' protocols. Requesting immediate return to baseline."

So yeah. Adulting. It's mostly just pretending you know what you're doing while trying not to set off any alarms, literal or metaphorical, and occasionally eating a vegetable before it dissolves into primordial ooze. It's a journey. A weird, slightly sticky, confusing journey.

Anyway, thanks for letting me vent! You guys have been awesome. Seriously. Give yourselves a round of applause for successfully leaving the house! I'm gonna go home and apologize to my refrigerator. Good night!

(Walks off stage quickly)

Try this prompt

Vote

6 / 17

06

Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design

Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025website

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 / 17

07

Linear App Cloneweb design

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025website

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 / 17

08

Framer-Style Animationweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025website

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

9 / 17

09

Interactive Catan Boardweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025website

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

10 / 17

10

AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning

Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025text

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.

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

11 / 17

11

World Map SVGimage generation

Tests an AI's ability to create a detailed world map in SVG format

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025svg

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

12 / 17

12

Random Tailwind Webappweb design

Generate a single-page, self-contained HTML webapp using Tailwind CSS for a randomly chosen category/industry/niche.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025website

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

5+ 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