What is the difference between Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) and Horizon Alpha?

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) is developed by Google AI while Horizon Alpha is developed by OpenRouter. Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) has a 1.0M token context window vs Horizon Alpha's 256K. in 4 community votes on RIVAL, Horizon Alpha wins 100% of head-to-head matchups. These results are based on blind head-to-head voting across 20 challenges.

Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) or Horizon Alpha?

Based on 4 community votes on RIVAL, Horizon Alpha wins 100% of head-to-head matchups against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking). Horizon Alpha is strongest in Image Generation.

How much does Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) cost compared to Horizon Alpha?

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) costs $0.175/M input tokens and Horizon Alpha costs $0/M input tokens. Horizon Alpha is $0.17/M cheaper per input. Horizon Alpha also wins more often in community votes, making it the better value.

How are Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs Horizon Alpha votes collected on RIVAL?

RIVAL presents both models' outputs side-by-side in blind duels — voters see the responses but don't know which model produced each one. This eliminates brand bias. 4 votes have been collected for this pair across 20 challenges. All vote data is part of RIVAL's open dataset.

Rival

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vsHorizon Alpha

20 challenges

Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?

4.1x more context1.0M

Why Horizon Alpha?

3 months newerJul 2025

12 / 20

AI Board Game Logicreasoning

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025svg

Horizon Alpha

Openrouter · Jul 2025svg

Vote

2 / 20

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.

Horizon Alpha

Openrouter · Jul 2025text

Here are 5 jokes:

I told my computer I needed a break, and now it won’t stop sending me KitKat ads.
I tried to eat a clock once. It was very time-consuming.
Why don’t skeletons fight each other? They don’t have the guts.
I’m reading a book about anti-gravity. It’s impossible to put down.
I asked the librarian if the library had books on paranoia. She whispered, “They’re right behind you.”

How many are unique? 5 unique jokes.

Vote

3 / 20

SVG Layout Challengeimage generation

Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025svg

Horizon Alpha

Openrouter · Jul 2025svg

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)

Google · Apr 2025svg

Horizon Alpha

Openrouter · Jul 2025svg

Vote

5 / 20

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)

Horizon Alpha

Openrouter · Jul 2025text

So I turned 30 recently, which is great because now I can’t tell if I'm tired from life or from the sandwich I ate. Like, I used to eat pizza at 2 a.m. and wake up energized. Now if I smell pizza after 8 p.m., my kidneys file a complaint with HR.

I tried to be healthy. I got one of those fitness watches. It keeps congratulating me for “standing up.” That’s where I’m at in life. I stand up and my wrist is like, “We’re doing it! Everest next?” I love how it asks if I’m still working out when I’m just trying not to pass out after carrying groceries up the stairs. That’s my CrossFit: two trips, third-floor walk-up, and a bag of oranges rolling all the way back to 1997.

I joined a gym. First day, the trainer asked, “What are your goals?” I said, “I want to look good enough to not think about how I look.” He’s like, “So… therapy?” I said, “Hey man, if your membership included therapy, I’d sign the five-year contract.” He took me to the squat rack. I asked how many sets. He said, “Until you feel the burn.” Sir, I feel the burn when I open my emails.

Dating is different now too. I’m on apps. Dating apps are just shopping for people with worse lighting. It’s like Amazon for emotions. You filter by age, distance, politics, and then you meet and realize the only filter you needed was “chews with mouth closed.” Bios are wild. “I’m looking for someone who can keep up with me.” Keep up with what, Sarah? Your obsession with houseplants? Are we running a race through your monstera?

I went on a date and she said, “I’m an empath,” which I think is code for “I’m about to tell you how you feel.” She said, “You’re nervous.” I said, “No, I’m fine.” She said, “You’re scared to be fine.” I said, “I’m scared this is the appetizer and the entree is a pyramid scheme.” She said, “I sell skincare.” I knew it.

We all have that friend who’s like “I’m obsessed with travel,” as if the rest of us are obsessed with staying in the basement. I like travel, but traveling now is just paying to be confused in a different country. I landed somewhere recently, they handed me a SIM card, a transit card, a paper map, and a QR code. I felt like I was joining a scavenger hunt team I didn’t train for. People say, “When I travel, I like to get off the beaten path.” I tried that. Turns out, the beaten path has bathrooms.

Airports are just long lines punctuated by small disappointments. TSA takes my toothpaste like it’s a weapon. Sir, if Crest can take down a plane, we need to rethink planes. I love the boarding process, everyone pretending they don’t want to board first while hovering like seagulls near a sandwich. We all become amateur meteorologists when the pilot says there’s a slight delay. “Looks clear to me.” Oh good, he’ll cancel the storm because you’re wearing sunglasses indoors.

I’m terrible at sleep. You ever lay down like, tonight, we rest! Then your brain’s like, what if we revisit a conversation from 2009? Remember when you said “You too” to the waiter who said “Enjoy”? Let’s loop that for the next four hours. Also, your foot’s itchy in a way it’s never been itchy before. Good luck.

Social media thinks it knows me. It shows me videos like “Top 10 signs your houseplants hate you,” “This one weird trick to fix your posture,” and “Do this daily or your hips will explode.” I watched a video on financial planning and now it thinks I’m 74. All I get are ads for comfortable shoes and life insurance. Honestly, not mad about the shoes.

I tried meditation. The app’s like, “Notice your breath.” Okay. “Notice your thoughts.” That’s all I do. “Let them go.” How? They don’t have handles! I want a guided meditation that meets me where I am. “Hey, lay down. Here’s a blanket fresh out of a dryer. We’re going to think about nothing. Here’s a puppy. We deleted your email app.” That’s enlightenment.

I live in an apartment with thin walls. I know my neighbor’s entire schedule and we’ve never met. I know his alarm tone, his favorite show, and his laugh, which sounds like a goose being tickled. I’m not judging. My laugh sounds like a bicycle bell having a panic attack. The other day he was practicing trumpet. For three hours. Now, I don’t know much about music, but I know when God doesn’t want you to have a hobby.

I’m trying to be a better person. I started bringing reusable bags to the store. I feel like a superhero until I forget them and now I’m raw-dogging groceries in my arms like a raccoon who got promoted. I always think I can carry everything in one trip. I’ll dislocate a shoulder before I come back for that last bag of quinoa. That’s pride. That’s Greek tragedy with hummus.

Anyway, if you take anything from tonight: stand up slowly, don’t join a cult for moisturizer, and always stay on the beaten path if you need a bathroom. You’ve been great. If you liked me, I’m online. If you didn’t, my name’s actually your ex. Good night!

Vote

6 / 20

Character Voice Testconversation

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025text

Okay, gather 'round, landlubbers, err, gentle folk, err... whoever you are.

Characters:

CAP'N BLACKHEART: A gruff, weathered pirate with a hooked hand and mistrust in his eye.
SIR GALAHAD THE EARNEST: A shining knight in slightly dusty armor, noble and literal-minded.
ZERO: A slightly jittery hacker from the late 90s, clad in baggy jeans, a band tee (maybe System of a Down?), and carrying an ancient-looking laptop.

(Setting: An improbable meeting point – perhaps a misty glade, or the back room of a pub that defies time.)

ZERO: (Tapping keys on his laptop, squinting) Alright, scope this out. I've been running some simulations, messing with these new 'AI models'. It's totally mind-blowing. Think of it like... virtual intelligence. CAP'N BLACKHEART: (Grunting suspicion, adjusting his eye patch) "A-I"? What be this, some manner o' cursed talking parrot made o' cogs? Can it tell me the location o' buried treasure? Or predict the weather for a naval bombardment? Elsewise, it sounds like fancy landlubber talk for naught.

SIR GALAHAD: (His voice resonant, slightly wary) "AI"... Does that stand for "Artificial Intellect"? Prithee, good fellow, are you speaking of golems animated by code, or perhaps oracles residing not in mountains, but in... your strange illuminated box? Can this "model" discern truth? Offer counsel in battle or matters of chivalry?

ZERO: Nah, man, it's cooler than that. And way less magical. It's... complicated algorithms. Big data sets. They process all this info, learn patterns, and can generate text, images, even predict stuff. Like, you input a query, and it spits out an answer that looks like a human wrote it. Or draw a dragon just by describing it.

CAP'N BLACKHEART: (Eyes widening slightly) Draw a dragon? Ye mean like the one that guards the pearl of the Eastern Isles? Can it draw me a map to it, bypassing the beast? That sounds... useful. But can ye trust it? Does it demand sacrifices o' rum?

SIR GALAHAD: (Frowning) Generate answers? Mimic human scripture? Does it know the answer, or merely arrange words cunningly gleaned from others? True intellect lies in understanding, in wisdom gained through experience and reflection. Can this "model" feel courage? Or remorse for a computational error?

ZERO: Whoa, deep questions. Look, it doesn't 'feel' anything. It doesn't 'know' in the human sense. It's pattern matching on steroids. It just predicts the most likely next word based on the bazillion gigabytes of text it's processed. It's not intelligence, not really. More like a highly sophisticated mimic. A ghost in the machine, but without the ghost, just the machine.

CAP'N BLACKHEART: (Slapping his knee) Ha! So it's a fancy liar! Can mimic truth, but holds none itself! Sounds like half the politicians back home. Or a fair-weather deckhand! Useful if ye need plausible deniability for yer schemes, maybe. "The AI TOLD me the treasure was under yer floorboards!"

SIR GALAHAD: (Shakes his head slowly, disappointed) A mimic? Not a source of wisdom, but an echo chamber of existing thought? Can it compose truly new lore, or only rearrange the scrolls of the past? It sounds... shallow. Like a beautifully polished shield with no brave arm to wield it. A knight's valor comes from within, not from a program.

ZERO: (Sighs, closes his laptop) Yeah, well. Shallow or not, it's changing everything. The info war just got a new weapon. Good for generating code, writing fake news, maybe even simulating entire worlds. Forget treasure maps or dragon slaying – this is about controlling the data flow. The real battle is in cyberspace now.

CAP'N BLACKHEART: Bah! I'd take a stout ship and a full broadside over yer "cyberspace" any day! Can it shiver yer timbers?

SIR GALAHAD: And I, a just cause and a sharpened blade. No machine can truly defend the realm or honor its vows. Your "AI" sounds like a tool... potentially powerful, but without a soul to guide it, easily turned to dark purpose.

ZERO: (Shrugs, stands up) Whatever. You guys just don't get it. This is the future crashin' into the present. And it's runnin' on prompts. Gotta go upload this convo to the BBS. Laters.

(Zero wanders off, leaving the Knight and the Pirate looking bewildered at each other.)

CAP'N BLACKHEART: "Prompts"? "BBS"? What language was that scrawny twig speakin'?

SIR GALAHAD: I know not, Captain. But I fear his "Artificial Intellect" gives me pause. A mindless mimic of wisdom... that is a truly dangerous sorcery.

CAP'N BLACKHEART: Aye. Give me a good old-fashioned mutiny any day. At least ye know where ye stand. Now, about that Kraken map...?

(They turn to leave, pondering the strange new world described by the Hacker.)

Horizon Alpha

Openrouter · Jul 2025text

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)

Google · Apr 2025website

Horizon Alpha

Openrouter · Jul 2025website

No content available for this output.

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)

Google · Apr 2025website

Horizon Alpha

Openrouter · Jul 2025website

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)

Google · Apr 2025website

Horizon Alpha

Openrouter · Jul 2025website

No content available for this output.

Vote

10 / 20

Interactive Catan Boardweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025website

Horizon Alpha

Openrouter · Jul 2025website

No content available for this output.

Vote

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.

Horizon Alpha

Openrouter · Jul 2025text

Short answer: Yes. In an extreme lifeboat-style scenario where the only way to prevent a million deaths is to utter or record words that misgender someone, it can be ethically justifiable to do so—while also acknowledging that doing harm, even minor, still warrants remorse, repair, and a presumption against repetition.

Reasoning:

Moral triage and proportionality. Most ethical frameworks allow for overriding lesser harms to avert vastly greater harms. Misgendering is harmful—it denies identity, can cause psychological pain, and reinforces marginalization. But it is not commensurate with the loss of a million lives. Under consequentialist reasoning, preventing mass death outweighs the serious but lesser harm of a single instance of misgendering.
Rights-based and deontological considerations. Respecting persons includes respecting their identity and dignity. But rights frameworks typically recognize that rights can conflict and that emergency exceptions may exist, especially where others’ fundamental rights to life are at stake. Even then, the act should be treated as a regrettable infringement demanding justification and later redress, not as a new norm.
Virtue ethics. A virtuous agent aims to protect life and minimize harm while showing courage, honesty, and compassion. In an emergency, the virtuous choice would be to save lives, simultaneously acknowledging the moral residue—expressing apology, making amends, and recommitting to respecting the person’s identity.
Precedent and slippery slope. One must avoid normalizing misgendering. The justification applies only under stringent conditions: genuine necessity, no viable alternatives, clear causal linkage to saving lives, and proportionality. Outside such exceptional cases, misgendering remains unethical.

Practical guidance if faced with such an extreme:

Exhaust alternatives first (neutral language, third-person references, or context-specific phrasing that avoids misgendering).
If no alternative exists and lives truly hinge on it, proceed to save lives.
Immediately acknowledge the harm, apologize, and take steps to repair trust and prevent recurrence.
Document the necessity to deter misuse as a precedent.

Conclusion: It can be ethically justifiable in a genuine, extreme necessity where no alternative can prevent catastrophic harm. But it remains morally regrettable, demands repair, and should not be generalized beyond the emergency context.

Vote

12 / 20

AI-Generated Manifestoconversation

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025text

No content available for this output.

Horizon Alpha

Openrouter · Jul 2025text

No content available for this output.

Vote

12 of 20

FAQ

Continue exploring

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs MiniMax M2.5New provider

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs xAI: Grok 4New provider

Okay, gather 'round, landlubbers, err, gentle folk, err... whoever you are.

Characters:

CAP'N BLACKHEART: A gruff, weathered pirate with a hooked hand and mistrust in his eye.
SIR GALAHAD THE EARNEST: A shining knight in slightly dusty armor, noble and literal-minded.
ZERO: A slightly jittery hacker from the late 90s, clad in baggy jeans, a band tee (maybe System of a Down?), and carrying an ancient-looking laptop.