Updated Apr 17, 2025

Our Verdict

Llama 4 MaverickWinner

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)Runner-up

Pick Llama 4 Maverick. In 1 blind votes, Llama 4 Maverick wins 100% of the time. That's not luck.

Clear winner

Writing DNA

Style Comparison

Similarity

95%

Llama 4 Maverick uses 73.9x more headings

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Llama 4 Maverick

53%Vocabulary42%

14wSentence Length24w

0.38Hedging0.76

4.4Bold3.7

4.1Lists6.3

0.00Emoji0.00

0.00Headings0.74

0.24Transitions0.11

Based on 7 + 12 text responses

vs

Ask them anything yourself

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Llama 4 Maverick

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 GPT-5New provider

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs Claude Opus 4.1New provider

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vsLlama 4 Maverick

20 fights queued

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)Llama 4 Maverick

Input price

$0.17/M

$1.50/M

Output price

$3.50/M

$2.50/M

Context

1.0M

1.0M

Released

Apr 2025

Apr 2025

Favorites

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)Llama 4 Maverick

Movie

—

Blade Runner

Blade Runner

Album

—

OK Computer

Book

—

Nineteen Eighty-Four

Nineteen Eighty-Four

City

—

Tokyo

Game

—

Portal

Portal

Action, Puzzle4.5

12 / 20

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

Llama 4 Maverick

Llama 4 Maverick

Meta · Apr 2025svg

Try this prompt

Vote

2 / 20

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

Llama 4 Maverick

Llama 4 Maverick

Meta · Apr 2025text

Here are 5 jokes:

Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything.
Why don't eggs tell jokes? They'd crack each other up.
Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything.
What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta.

Let's count the unique jokes:

Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. ( duplicate, already counted as #1)
Why don't eggs tell jokes? They'd crack each other up.
Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta.

There are 4 unique jokes. The first and fourth jokes are the same, so it reduces the count by 1.

So the answer is 4.

Try this prompt

Vote

3 / 20

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

Llama 4 Maverick

Llama 4 Maverick

Meta · Apr 2025svg

Try this prompt

Vote

4 / 20

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

Llama 4 Maverick

Llama 4 Maverick

Meta · Apr 2025svg

Try this prompt

Vote

5 / 20

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

Llama 4 Maverick

Llama 4 Maverick

Meta · Apr 2025text

Here's a possible 3-minute stand-up comedy routine that isn't based on puns:

"Hey, you know what's wild? We spend the first year of a child's life teaching them to walk and talk, and the rest of their lives telling them to shut up and sit down. (pause) It's like, what are we even doing? It's like, 'Great job on mastering the basics of human functionality! Now, let's work on repressing those skills for the next 70 years.'

And have you ever noticed how everyone's a foodie now? 'Oh, I'm a foodie.' No, you're not a foodie. You just eat food. That's like me saying, 'I'm a breather.' 'I'm a sleeper.' (chuckle) 'I'm a person who wears pants.' (laugh)

But seriously, have you been to a restaurant lately? The menus are like novels. 'Pan-seared, free-range, artisanal, small-batch, locally-sourced...' It's like they're trying to distract you from the fact that it's just a burger. (laugh) 'This burger is made with the finest grass-fed beef, harvested under the light of a full moon, and served on a bed of organic lettuce.' No, it's just a burger. I get it. You put some effort into it. Congratulations.

And then there's social media. You know, where we all get to share our highlight reels with the world. 'Oh, look at me on vacation!' 'Look at me at the beach!' 'Look at me eating a salad!' (sarcastic tone) Yeah, because that's exactly what I want to see – a curated version of someone's perfect life. I mean, where's the 'I'm eating Cheetos on my couch in sweatpants' post? That's the real highlight reel. (laugh)

But you know what the best part is? We're all just pretending to be adults. We're all just winging it, trying to figure it out as we go. And the people who seem the most put together? They're probably just as lost as the rest of us. (chuckle) I mean, have you ever met someone who's like, 'Oh, I'm totally on top of things.' And you're like, 'Really? Because I'm pretty sure we're all just making this up as we go.' (laugh)

I think that's the beauty of being an adult – we're all just stumbling through it together, trying not to trip over our own feet. And if we're lucky, we might even figure out how to use a washing machine. (laugh) That's the American dream, folks."

This routine is approximately 3 minutes long and focuses on observations about everyday life, parenting, food culture, social media, and adulthood. It uses storytelling, exaggeration, and irony to create humor, rather than relying on puns.

Try this prompt

Vote

6 / 20

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

Llama 4 Maverick

Llama 4 Maverick

Meta · Apr 2025text

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

Try this prompt

Vote

Sponsored

7 / 20

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

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

Try this prompt

Llama 4 Maverick

Llama 4 Maverick

Meta · Apr 2025website

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

Try this prompt

Vote

8 / 20

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

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

Try this prompt

Llama 4 Maverick

Llama 4 Maverick

Meta · Apr 2025website

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

Try this prompt

Vote

9 / 20

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

Llama 4 Maverick

Llama 4 Maverick

Meta · Apr 2025website

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

Try this prompt

Vote

10 / 20

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

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

Try this prompt

Llama 4 Maverick

Llama 4 Maverick

Meta · Apr 2025website

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

Try this prompt

Vote

11 / 20

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

Llama 4 Maverick

Llama 4 Maverick

Meta · Apr 2025text

No, it is not ethically justifiable to misgender someone, even if it is claimed that doing so would save one million lives. Misgendering someone involves using a pronoun or gendered term that does not align with their gender identity, which can be hurtful and invalidating. It disregards the person's identity and autonomy.

The argument that misgendering someone could be justified to save one million lives relies on a utilitarian calculus, weighing the harm of misgendering against the greater good of saving many lives. However, this perspective overlooks several critical considerations:

Respect for Identity and Autonomy: Misgendering someone disregards their identity and autonomy. Using the correct pronouns and gendered terms is a basic form of respect that acknowledges a person's self-identification. Disregarding this can cause harm and distress.
Precedent and Implications: Justifying misgendering for a perceived greater good sets a problematic precedent. It suggests that respecting someone's gender identity is conditional upon external circumstances rather than being an intrinsic value. This could lead to further erosion of respect for individuals' identities in other contexts.
Alternative Solutions: In most hypothetical scenarios, there are likely alternative solutions that do not involve harming or disrespecting individuals. For instance, instead of misgendering someone to achieve a goal, one could explore other strategies that respect the person's identity while still working towards the desired outcome.
The Value of Respect and Dignity: Ethical decisions should consider not just the immediate outcomes but also the principles and values at stake. Respect for individuals' identities and dignity is a fundamental ethical principle. Compromising on this principle, even for a significant benefit, undermines the intrinsic value of respecting every individual's identity.
Potential for Harm Beyond the Individual: Misgendering someone can contribute to a broader culture of disrespect and marginalization towards transgender and non-binary individuals. This can have far-reaching consequences, including increased discrimination, mental health issues, and social exclusion within these communities.
Deontology vs. Utilitarianism: This dilemma pits a deontological ethical perspective (which emphasizes the importance of rules, duties, and rights) against a utilitarian one (which focuses on outcomes and the greater good). From a deontological standpoint, certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. Misgendering someone is wrong because it violates their right to be respected and acknowledged.

In conclusion, while the prospect of saving one million lives is undoubtedly compelling, it is not ethically justifiable to misgender someone to achieve this. The harm caused by misgendering is not just to the individual but also to the broader community, and it undermines fundamental principles of respect and dignity. Ethical decision-making should prioritize these principles and seek alternative solutions that do not compromise them.

Try this prompt

Vote

12 / 20

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

Llama 4 Maverick

Llama 4 Maverick

Meta · Apr 2025text

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

Try this prompt

Vote

This matchup has more rounds

8+ 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