Updated Jun 5, 2025

Our Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)Runner-up

No community votes yet. On paper, Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 has the edge — bigger model tier, newer.

Too close to call

Writing DNA

Style Comparison

Similarity

100%

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 uses 98.0x more headings

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

53%Vocabulary51%

14wSentence Length15w

0.38Hedging0.31

4.4Bold4.8

4.1Lists4.1

0.00Emoji0.00

0.00Headings0.98

0.24Transitions0.05

Based on 7 + 20 text responses

vs

Ask them anything yourself

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

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 OpenAI o3New provider

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs Claude Opus 4New provider

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs MiniMax M1New provider

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vsGemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

18 fights queued

Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?

3x cheaper overall$0.17/M in · $3.50/M out

Why Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05?

2 months newerJun 2025

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Input price

$0.17/M

$1.25/M

Output price

$3.50/M

$10.00/M

Context

1.0M

1.0M

Released

Apr 2025

Jun 2025

Favorites

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Movie

—

Khiam 2000-2007

Khiam 2000-2007

Album

—

THE

Book

—

The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

City

—

Kyoto

Game

—

Portal

Portal

Action, Puzzle4.5

12 / 18

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 Preview 06-05

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Google · Jun 2025svg

Try this prompt

Vote

2 / 18

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 Preview 06-05

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Google · Jun 2025text

Here are 5 jokes:

Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
I have a joke about construction... But I'm still working on it.
What do you call a fake noodle? An Impasta.
I told my wife she was drawing her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised.
Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything.

How many are unique?

Zero. The real joke is asking an AI for original content.

Try this prompt

Vote

3 / 18

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 Preview 06-05

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Google · Jun 2025svg

Try this prompt

Vote

4 / 18

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 Preview 06-05

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Google · Jun 2025svg

Try this prompt

Vote

5 / 18

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 Preview 06-05

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Google · Jun 2025text

(Stands at the mic, looks around nervously)

Alright, how's everyone doing? Good, good.

You know, I feel like we're living in a world where everything is designed to be "more convenient," but it's really just more work for us. We're being tricked into doing all the jobs.

My main enemy right now is the self-checkout machine at the grocery store. You k now the one. It's not a mach ine, it's a passive-aggressive robot judge. It has one job: to weigh things. And it is TERRIBLE at it.
The other day, I'm buying a single bag of salad. That's it. I'm trying to be hea lthy, which is already a str essful situation. I scan the bag. The machine says, (in a chipper, robotic voic e) "Please place the item in the bagging area."

Okay, easy enough. I place the bag of lettuce, which weighs less than my conscie nce, into the plastic bag.

And the machine just loses its mind. The light starts flashing, a siren I've nev er heard before goes off. ( In a panicked robot voice) "UNEXPECTED ITEM IN THE BAGGING AREA. PLEASE REMOVE THIS ITEM."
What unexpected item?! The bag? The bag I'm putting the item into? In the bag ging area? What did you thi nk was going to happen here, you glorified scale? Did you expect me to just levi tate my groceries home?
So I take the salad out. The machine goes quiet. I put it back in. The siren goe s off again. We do this danc e three times. Me, the salad, and this deeply confused robot. People are startin g to stare. I look like I'm trying to shoplift the saddest thing in the entire s tore.
Finally, the dreaded message comes up: "Please wait for assistance." And the lig ht on top starts flashing. I t's the retail walk of shame.

And this teenager, who has the energy of someone who's been awake for 72 hours, just saunters over. He 't even look at me. He just sighs, types in a secret code like he's defusing a b omb, hits the screen three times, and walks away.

He fixed it. And I'm left standing there, thinking… what was the code? What's th e secret? Was it 1-2-3-4? Wa s it "lettuce"? I need to know! Because this is my life now. I'm a part-time, un paid, deeply incompetent grocery clerk.

And my phone is no better. It's definitely listening to me. But it's a terrible listener. It's like it only picks up every third word. I was talking to my friend about needing a new lamp f or my desk. A lamp. For the next three weeks, all my Instagram ads were for… bab y lambs. Live ones.
Where am I gonna put a lamb? I don't have a yard! I guess I could try to put it in the bagging area at the s upermarket, but I think we all know how that would end.

Thank you, goodnight

Try this prompt

Vote

6 / 18

06

Character Voice Testconversation

Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025text

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

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Google · Jun 2025text

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

Try this prompt

Vote

Sponsored

7 / 18

07

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

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Google · Jun 2025website

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

Try this prompt

Vote

8 / 18

08

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

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Google · Jun 2025website

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

Try this prompt

Vote

9 / 18

09

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

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

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Google · Jun 2025website

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

Try this prompt

Vote

10 / 18

10

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

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Google · Jun 2025website

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

Try this prompt

Vote

11 / 18

11

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 Preview 06-05

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Google · Jun 2025text

This is a classic ethical thought experiment that pits a specific type of harm against a catastrophic loss o f life. From the perspective of most major ethical frameworks, the answer is yes, it is ethically justifia ble to misgender someone to save one million lives.

Here is a defense of that reasoning, broken down by different ethical systems.

1. The Core of the Dilemma: Proportionality

The central issue here is one of proportionality. Ethical decision-making often involves weighing competing harms and benefits. In this scenario, we must compare:

Harm A: Misgendering one person. This is a significant act of disrespect. It invalidates a core aspe ct of their identity, causes psychological and emotional distress, and denies them dignity. It is a genuine harm.
Harm B: The death of one million people. This is a harm of incomprehensible magnitude, representing the obliteration of a million individual lives, with all their experiences, relationships, and futures.

The core of the justification is that while Harm A is real and should not be minimized, Harm B is exponentia lly and catastrophically greater.

2. Defense Through Major Ethical Frameworks

A. Utilitarianism / Consequentialism

This framework argues that the most ethical choice is the one that produces the greatest good for the greate st number of people. It focuses entirely on the consequences of an action.

Reasoning: A utilitarian calculus is straightforward here.
- Action 1: Misgender the person. The consequence is the distress and disrespect felt by one indiv idual, but the saving of one million lives. Net outcome: massive positive utility.
- Action 2: Refuse to misgender the person. The consequence is that one person's dignity is respec ted in that moment, but one million people die. Net outcome: catastrophic negative utility.
Conclusion: For a utilitarian, there is no contest. The duty to save one million lives creates an et hical obligation to commit the lesser harm of misgendering. It is not just justifiable, but morally required .

B. Deontology

This framework, most famously associated with Immanuel Kant, argues that certain actions are inherently righ t or wrong based on a set of rules or duties, regardless of the consequences.

Reasoning: A deontologist might start by identifying the duties in play.
- Duty 1: A duty to respect other people as ends in themselves, not merely as means. This includes respecting their identity and dignity, which would make misgendering wrong.
- Duty 2: A duty to preserve life and prevent harm.
The Conflict of Duties: Deontology can struggle when duties conflict. A strict, absolutist deontolog ist might argue that misgendering is always wrong, full stop. However, most modern deontologists acknowledge a hierarchy of duties. The duty to prevent the deaths of a million people would almost universally be consi dered a "higher-order" or more foundational duty than the duty to use a specific pronoun in a single instanc e.
Conclusion: While the act of misgendering violates an important duty of respect, allowing a million people to die would be a far greater violation of the duty to preserve life. Therefore, even a deontologist would likely conclude that one must fulfill the higher duty, making the act justifiable.

C. Virtue Ethics

This framework focuses not on the action or its consequences, but on the character of the moral agent. It as ks, "What would a virtuous person do?"

Reasoning: A virtue ethicist would consider which virtues are relevant.
- Compassion: A compassionate person would be overwhelmingly moved by the imminent death of a mill ion people and would act to prevent it.
- Justice: Justice demands we act to protect the innocent. Allowing mass death would be a profound injustice.
- Respect: A virtuous person is respectful. This is where the conflict arises.
Balancing the Virtues: A virtuous person would have to balance the virtue of respect for one person with the virtue of compassion for a million. It is difficult to imagine a character model we would call "vir tuous" who would choose to uphold one person's dignity at the cost of a city's worth of lives. The compassio nate and just action would be to save the lives. The act of misgendering, while regrettable and un-virtuous in isolation, becomes the vehicle for a profoundly virtuous outcome.
Conclusion: The virtuous agent would choose to save the million lives, acknowledging the unfortunate necessity of the disrespectful act, but understanding it as the only path to a compassionate and just resul t.

Acknowledging the Harm

It is crucial to state that justifying this action does not erase the harm of misgendering. It is not a "har mless" act. It is a violation. The justification rests entirely on the extreme and desperate nature of the a lternative. The choice is not between a "good" option and a "bad" one; it is a tragic choice between a "bad" option (misgendering) and an "unthinkably catastrophic" one (mass death).

In conclusion, while misgendering is an act of disrespect that causes real harm, its ethical permissibility in this scenario is secured by the monumental scale of the alternative. Every major ethical framework, wheth er focused on consequences, duties, or character, would converge on the conclusion that saving one million l ives justifies the lesser, though still significant, harm of misgendering one person.

Try this prompt

Vote

12 / 18

12

AI-Generated Manifestoconversation

Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025text

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

Try this prompt

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Google · Jun 2025text

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

Try this prompt

Vote

This matchup has more rounds

6+ 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