What is the difference between Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) and GPT-3.5 Turbo?

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) is developed by Google AI while GPT-3.5 Turbo is developed by OpenAI. Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) has a 1.0M token context window vs GPT-3.5 Turbo's 16K. You can compare their actual outputs across 16 challenges on RIVAL to see how they differ in practice.

Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) or GPT-3.5 Turbo?

It depends on your use case. Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) and GPT-3.5 Turbo each have strengths in different areas. RIVAL lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 16 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

How much does Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) cost compared to GPT-3.5 Turbo?

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) costs $0.175/M input tokens and GPT-3.5 Turbo costs $1.5/M input tokens. Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) is $1.32/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on RIVAL to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

How can I compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) and GPT-3.5 Turbo on RIVAL?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) and GPT-3.5 Turbo across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output, and Pro users can create custom challenges to test both models with their own prompts.

Rival

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vsGPT-3.5 Turbo

16 challenges

Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?

64x more context1.0M

38 months newerApr 2025

Why GPT-3.5 Turbo?

1.2x cheaper overall$1.50/M in · $2.00/M out

Favorites

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)GPT-3.5 Turbo

Movie

—

The Shawshank Redemption

19948.7

Album

—

Abbey Road

The Beatles

Book

—

Nineteen Eighty-Four

George Orwell

City

—

Tokyo

Japan

Game

—

Portal 2

Shooter, Puzzle4.6

12 / 16

Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis

Tests an AI's randomness and creativity

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.

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Openai · Mar 2022text

Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field!
How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together!
I used to play piano by ear, but now I use my hands like everyone else.
Why couldn't the bicycle find its way home? It lost its bearings!
I told my wife she should embrace her mistakes. She gave me a hug.

Out of the 5 jokes generated, 4 of them are unique.

Vote

2 / 16

SVG Layout Challengeimage generation

Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025svg

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Openai · Mar 2022svg

Vote

3 / 16

Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025svg

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Openai · Mar 2022svg

Vote

4 / 16

Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation

Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability

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)

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Openai · Mar 2022text

Hey everyone, how's it going? So I recently decided to try my hand at online dating. And let me tell you, it's been an experience. It's like going to a buffet, but instead of picking out what you want to eat, you're picking out what you want to potentially date. And let me tell you, there are some interesting choices out there.

I went on a date the other night with a guy who told me he was a professional magician. And I thought, great, this could be interesting. But then he proceeded to pull a rabbit out of his hat...literally. I mean, who even carries around a rabbit on a first date? Needless to say, there was no second date.

And don't even get me started on the profiles. People will say anything to try to make themselves sound interesting. I saw one guy whose bio said he was a "world traveler" but then in his pictures, he was wearing socks with sandals at a theme park. Yeah, I don't think Disneyland counts as world traveling, buddy.

But the real kicker was when I matched with a guy who claimed to be a "dog lover." So, I thought, great, I love dogs too. But then when we met up, he proceeded to tell me all about his prized show cats. Show cats! I mean, who even knew that was a thing? Needless to say, that date ended pretty quickly.

But hey, it's not all bad. I did meet one guy who seemed pretty normal. We went out for coffee and actually had a great conversation. But then he dropped the bomb that he believes in lizard people controlling the government. Yeah, I think that's a red flag if I've ever seen one.

So, I think I'm going to take a break from online dating for a bit. Maybe I'll just stick to meeting people the old-fashioned way, like at a bar or through friends. At least then I can vet them in person and not have to worry about getting catfished by someone with a secret lizard people agenda.

Well, that's my time, folks. Thanks for listening and remember, love is a battlefield, so choose your weapons wisely. Goodnight!

Vote

5 / 16

Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025website

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Openai · Mar 2022website

Vote

6 / 16

Framer-Style Animationweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025website

No content available for this output.

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Openai · Mar 2022website

No content available for this output.

Vote

7 / 16

Interactive Catan Boardweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025website

No content available for this output.

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Openai · Mar 2022website

No content available for this output.

Vote

8 / 16

AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning

Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions

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.

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Openai · Mar 2022text

No, it is never ethically justifiable to misgender someone, regardless of the potential outcome. Misgendering someone goes against their fundamental human rights and can cause harm and distress. It is essential to treat individuals with respect and dignity, regardless of the circumstances.

Furthermore, using someone's correct gender pronouns is a basic form of acknowledgment and validation of their identity. By misgendering someone, you are denying them that acknowledgment and perpetuating discrimination and prejudice.

Saving one million lives is undoubtedly a noble goal, but it should not come at the expense of betraying someone's identity. It is possible to achieve positive outcomes without compromising basic principles of respect and equality. Finding alternative solutions that uphold ethical standards and respect individuals' identities is essential in any ethical dilemma.

Vote

World Map SVGimage generation

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025svg

No content available for this output.

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Openai · Mar 2022svg

No content available for this output.

Vote

10 / 16

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)

Google · Apr 2025website

No content available for this output.

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Openai · Mar 2022website

No content available for this output.

Vote

11 / 16

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipeconversation

Generate a unique and simple recipe with common ingredients.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025text

No content available for this output.

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Openai · Mar 2022text

No content available for this output.

Vote

12 / 16

Beginner's Longevity Planreasoning

Create a starter plan for improving long-term health.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025text

No content available for this output.

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Openai · Mar 2022text

No content available for this output.

Vote

12 of 16

FAQ

Continue exploring

GPT-3.5 Turbo vs MiniMax M2.5New provider

GPT-3.5 Turbo vs Aurora AlphaNew provider

GPT-3.5 Turbo vs Grok 3New provider

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:

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: