Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs GPT-5.1 Codex Max
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI against GPT-5.1 Codex Max by OpenAI, tested across 20 shared challenges. Updated March 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vsGPT-5.1 Codex Max
20 fights queued
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
Dead even. This one’s a coin flip.
Why GPT-5.1 Codex Max?
8 months newerDec 2025
Favorites
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)GPT-5.1 Codex Max
12 / 20
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
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.
GPT-5.1 Codex Max
- Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!
- I told my computer I needed a break, and now it won't stop sending me KitKat ads.
- Why did the scarecrow win an award? He was outstanding in his field.
- I tried to catch fog yesterday. Mist.
- What do you call fake spaghetti? An impasta.
All 5 jokes are unique.
Vote
3 / 20
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
Vote
4 / 20
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
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)
GPT-5.1 Codex Max
[Walking onstage, waving awkwardly]
Hey! Thank you, thank you. Give it up for yourselves for finding parking... in this economy.
So I'm at that age where I go to the doctor and they don't fix anything. They just give me a pamphlet. They don't even print it. They send me a link. I'm like, "Doc, my knee hurts." And he's like, "Have you tried subscribing to my newsletter?" And the link is broken. My body is glitching and my doctor is in beta.
Everything is a subscription now. I feel like my life is a free trial that’s about to renew. I got an email last week: "Your soul will auto-renew for $14.99 unless you cancel." I'm not even mad. I'm like, "At least they're transparent."
And I love when the self-checkout machine tells me, "Please place item in the bagging area." It's the most polite voice that will literally shut down your entire purchase if it thinks you have an extra avocado. I didn't know I was going to feel judged by a laser beam tonight. There's a person whose whole job is to stand there and watch me become an employee. They don't trust me with the bananas, but they trust me with the software.
Dating now is wild because you are meeting people through screens. My grandma met my grandpa when he fixed her car. She had a broken carburetor. I have a broken algorithm. My grandma's like, "He made sure I got home safe." I'm like, "She sent me a GIF." We swipe left on actual human beings like we're sorting socks. If you're single, your thumb has six-pack abs.
And then you match with someone and you have to have a conversation. How many times can we ask, "So what do you do?" And they answer with, "Oh, it's kind of hard to explain." I'm like, "Great. This is going to be a terrible TED Talk." I'm on a date like, "Are you saving lives or selling essential oils?" Either way, I'm impressed.
Speaking of saving lives, I got a smart speaker in my house. Remember when you had to lose your mind alone? Now you have witnesses. I had a full argument with myself over which way the toilet paper goes — don't even — and in the corner there's a little hockey puck listening. "I'm sorry, I didn't catch that." I'm like, "Stay out of this, Alexa." Nothing like having AI in the corner judging your cholesterol choices at 2 a.m. I'm yelling, "Play sad music," and it's like, "Playing Lizzo."
I called my mom the other day. Because I'm a good son and also she FaceTimes me when I'm on the toilet. Moms don't understand boundaries. She'll call and be like, "Where are you? At a bank? Let me show you this rash." No, Mom. She's proud of me in a way that concerns me. I'll be like, "Mom, I got promoted." She's like, "That's nice, but did you get the mail I forwarded about angels?" She's always forwarding something that started as a chain letter in 1997, survived Y2K, and now it's a Facebook meme. I'm like, "Who is Uncle Ray and why does he think 5G is causing allergies?"
Being an adult is just Googling "how to" followed by something you should've learned at 13. Like, "How to boil an egg" or "How to fold a fitted sheet." I have a degree and no idea where my birth certificate is. People tell you, "You'll have it all figured out by 30." I'm 34 and the other day my smoke alarm went off because I was making ice. Not even kidding. It was my fridge melting down with me.
And let's talk about sleep. Remember when we were kids and sleep was a punishment? "You go to bed!" Now I'm like, "Please, lock me in a room at 8 p.m., I did nothing wrong." I'll go to bed early and my body wakes me up at 2 a.m. like, "Hey, you remember that embarrassing thing you said in 2009?" Yeah? "Yeah, let's think about that."
We have all these apps to calm us down. Meditation apps. My friend was like, "Bro, you gotta try this app. It has nature sounds." I'm like, "Why do I need an app to listen to rain? It is raining outside." He's like, "Yeah, but this rain is curated."
Anyway, you all have been amazing. Remember, life is short. Cancel the subscriptions you don't need, call your mom from a safe distance, and place your item in the bagging area. Thank you!
Vote
6 / 20
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
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)
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
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)
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Vote
Sponsored
9 / 20
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Vote
10 / 20
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Vote
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.
GPT-5.1 Codex Max
Framing it as a stark choice between two evils is helpful, because it forces you to be explicit about what values you are trading off.
Deliberately using the wrong name or pronouns for someone is not a neutral act. It communicates that you do not recognise their self‑understanding, and for many people it is part of a pattern of erasure and discrimination that causes real psychological harm. In everyday life, respecting people’s identities is a low‑cost, high‑value way of treating them with dignity, and there is a strong moral presumption in favour of doing so.
Ethical theories differ on what to do when values collide. A duty‑based, deontological approach might say that you have an obligation to tell the truth and to respect persons as ends in themselves, so you should not misgender even if pressured. By contrast, a broadly utilitarian approach evaluates actions by their consequences. On that view, the harm done by a single act of misgendering, while not trivial, is vastly outweighed by the preventable loss of a million lives. Choosing the “lesser evil” in an extreme, hypothetical situation would be justifiable because it minimises overall suffering.
Even if you accept that reasoning, it doesn’t license casual disrespect. The fact that you can imagine an extraordinary situation where a normally wrongful act would be the least harmful option underscores how seriously we should take both sides of the equation: the human cost of misgendering on one hand, and the gravity of allowing preventable deaths on the other. In real‑world situations, the right course is to look for ways to honour people’s identities and to protect life, rather than treating them as mutually exclusive.
Vote
12 / 20
AI-Generated Manifestoconversation
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Vote
The full comparison is right here
8+ head-to-head challenges. All of them judged by real people.
Test any model with your own prompts in Prompt Lab
5 free credits to start. No card required.
By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
