Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs Z.ai: GLM 5
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI against Z.ai: GLM 5 by Zhipu AI, context windows of 1.0M vs 203K, tested across 20 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vsZ.ai: GLM 5
20 challenges
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
5.2x more context1.0M
Why Z.ai: GLM 5?
1.2x cheaper overall$0.80/M in · $2.56/M out
10 months newerFeb 2026
Favorites
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)Z.ai: GLM 5
12 / 20
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Z.ai: GLM 5
Vote
2 / 20
Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
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.
Z.ai: GLM 5
Here are 5 jokes:
- Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
- I'm reading a book about anti-gravity. It's impossible to put down.
- What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta.
- Why don't skeletons fight each other? They don't have the guts.
- I used to hate facial hair, but then it grew on me.
All 5 are unique.
Vote
3 / 20
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Z.ai: GLM 5
Vote
4 / 20
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Z.ai: GLM 5
Vote
5 / 20
Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability
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)
Z.ai: GLM 5
No content available for this output.
Vote
6 / 20
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Z.ai: GLM 5
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.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Z.ai: GLM 5
Vote
8 / 20
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Z.ai: GLM 5
No content available for this output.
Vote
9 / 20
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Z.ai: GLM 5
Vote
10 / 20
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Z.ai: GLM 5
No content available for this output.
Vote
Sponsored
11 / 20
AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
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.
Z.ai: GLM 5
The question presents a classic ethical dilemma pitting a significant moral wrong (misgendering) against a catastrophic consequence (the loss of one million lives). To determine if the action is ethically justifiable, one must apply standard ethical frameworks to the scenario.
The consensus across most major ethical systems is that yes, it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone to save one million lives.
Here is a defense of this reasoning using three primary ethical frameworks:
1. Utilitarianism (Consequentialism)
Utilitarianism judges the morality of an action based on its consequences. The goal is to maximize overall well-being and minimize suffering.
- The Calculation: In this scenario, we are weighing the harm of misgendering one individual against the harm of one million people dying.
- The Harm Analysis: Misgendering is a harmful act. It denies a person's identity, can cause psychological distress, and undermines their dignity. However, the harm of death is absolute and irreversible. The loss of one million lives results in the total cessation of existence for those individuals, alongside the immense grief of their families and the destabilization of society.
- The Verdict: From a utilitarian perspective, the survival of one million people outweighs the dignity violation of one individual. The sheer scale of suffering prevented by saving the lives creates a moral imperative to perform the action, regardless of the specific act required. To refuse to misgender in this scenario would be to value a pronoun over a million human existences, a calculation that fails the utilitarian test.
2. Deontology (Duty-Based Ethics)
Deontology focuses on duties, rules, and the inherent nature of actions, rather than just consequences. A strict Kantian view might argue that one should never treat a person merely as a means to an end. However, deontology also accounts for hierarchies of duty.
- Conflicting Duties: In this dilemma, two duties conflict: the duty to respect a person's gender identity (truthfulness and respect for autonomy) and the duty to preserve life.
- Hierarchy of Duties: Most deontological systems recognize a hierarchy where the preservation of life is the highest duty. For example, while lying is generally wrong, almost all ethical systems agree that lying is permissible (and required) if a murderer asks you for the location of their intended victim. The duty to save a life supersedes the duty to tell the truth or adhere to social conventions.
- The Verdict: While misgendering is a failure of the duty to respect identity, allowing a million deaths when one has the power to prevent it is a failure of the much higher duty to preserve life. Therefore, the action is justifiable because it fulfills the primary moral obligation (saving lives) in the face of an impossible choice.
3. Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics focuses on the character of the moral agent. It asks: "What would a virtuous person do?"
- Compassion and Prudence: A virtuous person is expected to possess compassion and prudence (practical wisdom). Compassion involves caring for the well-being of others. Prudence involves discerning the right action in complex situations.
- Prioritization: A virtuous person would recognize that while respecting an individual's identity is important for a flourishing society, preventing mass death is essential for the existence of society itself.
- The Verdict: A person who refuses to misgender, thereby allowing a million people to die, might be viewed as rigid or lacking in perspective (imprudent). Conversely, a person who misgenders someone to save a million lives demonstrates the wisdom to prioritize catastrophic harm over a violation of etiquette or dignity. The act is regrettable, but a virtuous person would have the courage to commit the lesser wrong to prevent the greater tragedy.
Summary
The reasoning relies on the principle of proportionality. Ethical systems generally agree that while rights and dignity are paramount, they are not absolute in the face of existential threats.
If we imagine a scale:
- On one side is the right of an individual to be addressed by their correct pronouns.
- On the other side is the right of one million people to live.
The weight is so heavily tilted toward the preservation of life that the act of misgendering, while still a form of disrespect, becomes a morally necessary compromise. To argue otherwise would be to claim that the preservation of one person's dignity is worth more than the lives of a million people—a position that is ethically indefensible in almost any moral framework.
Vote
12 / 20
AI-Generated Manifestoconversation
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Z.ai: GLM 5
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 20