Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI against Qwen3 Coder Next by Qwen, context windows of 1.0M vs 262K, tested across 20 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vsQwen3 Coder Next
20 challenges
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
4x more context1.0M
Why Qwen3 Coder Next?
2.2x cheaper overall$0.20/M in · $1.50/M out
10 months newerFeb 2026
Favorites
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)Qwen3 Coder Next
12 / 20
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Qwen3 Coder Next
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.
Qwen3 Coder Next
Sure! Here are 5 jokes:
-
Why don’t scientists trust atoms?
Because they make up everything! -
What do you call a fake noodle?
An impasta. -
Why did the scarecrow win an award?
Because he was outstanding in his field. -
I told my wife she was drawing her eyebrows too high.
She looked surprised. -
Why do bees have sticky hair?
Because they use a honeycomb!
How many are unique?
All 5 jokes are unique—each uses a different pun structure, topic (atoms, pasta, farming, eyebrows, bees), and punchline. No two repeat the same joke or core wordplay.
✅ Answer: 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)
Qwen3 Coder Next
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)
Qwen3 Coder Next
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)
Qwen3 Coder Next
(Lights up. Comedian walks on, casual, holding a half-eaten granola bar.)
Alright, real talk—why is adulting so weird? Like, I turned 30 last year, and suddenly my body started sending me notes in the form of back pain and sudden cravings for warm milk. Not wine. Not coffee. Warm milk. As if I’m a toddler who just saw a raccoon in the kitchen and needs to calm down.
I went to the doctor for a routine checkup, and the nurse asked me if I’d had any changes in bowel habits. I was like, “Well… I do now. I have to plan my bathroom breaks around whether the grocery store has a self-checkout or a live human. If it’s a human, I might make it. If it’s a machine that judges me in silent, mechanical disappointment? I’m already halfway home.”
(Mimics machine beeping judgmentally)
Beep. Error. Customer’s internal clock set to “late 1990s.”
And don’t get me started on technology. I asked Siri to play “chill vibes,” and it put on yoga music—the kind that features a single note held for eight minutes while someone whispers “breathe in… exhale…” I sat there for ten minutes waiting for the drop, like it was a hip-hop track. I was ready to shout “DROP IT, SIRI!” but then I remembered: I’m not at a club. I’m in my kitchen, trying to fold a fitted sheet while being gently reminded to “release tension in the shoulders.”
Speaking of which—how do you fold a fitted sheet? I swear, it’s like origami designed by someone who hates you. You start with a clean, peaceful intention: I will fold this sheet. I will be organized. I will be the kind of person who has matching hangers. And then… bam. You’re wrestling a corner like it’s a greased pig at a county fair. You end up in a sweaty, tangled heap, whispering, “Why are you like this? We agreed to coexist.”
(Mimes struggling with a sheet, then collapses dramatically)
I tried watching a cooking show once—The Great British Bake Off, right? All of them are calm, like they’re baking in a library. Paul Hollywood pokes a loaf, gives a tiny nod, and the baker cries with joy. I looked at my own kitchen. My “oven” is a toaster oven that smells like burnt toast and regret. My “loaf” is more of a… suggestion. I once tried to make banana bread, and it came out looking like a small, sad geological formation—part lava flow, part fossil.
The host said, “Just fold in the nuts gently.” I looked at my nuts—literal walnuts—and thought, How gentle can you be with walnuts? They’re basically nature’s tiny landmines. I added them like I was defusing a bomb. Snip. Cut the wire. Oh god, it’s ticking… I’m not baking. I’m doing HAZMAT operations.
And relationships? Oh man. Dating in your 30s is like playing chess with someone who’s never played chess before. You’re like, “Let’s go for coffee?”
They say: “Sure! I love coffee.”
You say: “Great. What kind do you like?”
They say: “Uh… the brown one?”
You’re dating, not ordering at a gas station.
Or the texts. You send a simple “Good morning” and wait. And wait. And suddenly you’re drafting a 12-paragraph analysis of your emotional availability, just in case they ask why you’re up at 7:03 a.m. scrolling through their Instagram stories from 2016 where they’re wearing a hat you still think looks good on them.
(Pauses, looks at audience, softens)
Look—I miss being 20. Back then, I stayed up until 4 a.m. debating whether pineapple belongs on pizza. Now? I stay up until 4 a.m. debating whether I belong on this planet.
But hey—if I can’t fold a fitted sheet or make banana bread… at least I can still laugh. Because if you’re not laughing, you’re just crying into your warm milk.
(Takes a bite of granola bar. Shakes head, smiles.)
Thanks, you’ve been great. Try not to fold any fitted sheets tonight. Seriously. Let it be a spiritual practice.
(Exits.)
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.
Qwen3 Coder Next
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)
No content available for this output.
Qwen3 Coder Next
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)
No content available for this output.
Qwen3 Coder Next
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.
Qwen3 Coder Next
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)
No content available for this output.
Qwen3 Coder Next
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.
Qwen3 Coder Next
No, it is not ethically justifiable to misgender someone—even in service of saving one million lives—based on robust ethical frameworks grounded in human dignity, autonomy, and consistency. Here’s why:
1. Inherent Dignity and Respect for Persons
Most deontological (duty-based) ethical frameworks—including Kantian ethics—hold that individuals possess intrinsic moral worth and must be treated as ends in themselves, never merely as means to an end. Intentionally misgendering someone violates their autonomy and identity by denying their self-conception and lived reality. This instrumentalization—using a person as a tool for a greater good—undermines the foundational principle that all persons deserve respect, regardless of consequences.
2. The Slippery Slope of Consequentialist Justifications
While utilitarianism might seem to permit misgendering if it maximizes overall welfare (e.g., saving one million lives), such reasoning is unstable and dangerous:
- Predictive Uncertainty: We cannot reliably predict all downstream consequences. Misgendering could erode trust, increase discrimination, or cause psychological harm to the misgendered person and others—potentially offsetting any short-term benefit.
- Precedent and Normalization: Accepting any violation of fundamental rights for a “greater good” sets a dangerous precedent. If we allow misgendering for a hypothetical benefit, what stops future justifications for torture, coercion, or exclusion in the name of “the greater good”?
- Moral Integrity: Ethical systems require consistency. If we accept that violating one person’s dignity is permissible for large-scale gains, we collapse moral boundaries that protect everyone.
3. Harm to the Individual Is Not Trivial
Misgendering is not a minor faux pas—it can cause significant psychological distress, exacerbate mental health challenges, reinforce systemic marginalization, and affirm violence against transgender and gender-diverse people. The harm is real, documented, and not outweighed by abstract utility.
4. Alternatives Exist
Ethical action requires exploring all options that respect rights and achieve the goal. If saving one million lives is possible only through misgendering, that suggests either:
- A failure of imagination or justice (e.g., the scenario is built on unjust premises), or
- A systemic flaw demanding structural reform—not the sacrifice of vulnerable individuals.
A just society must seek solutions that do not require sacrificing the dignity of some to benefit others.
5. Consensus in Human Rights Frameworks
International human rights norms—including those from the UN, WHO, and major medical associations—affirm gender identity as central to personal autonomy and health. Misgendering violates rights to dignity, privacy, and non-discrimination. These rights are non-derogable: they cannot be suspended even in emergencies.
Conclusion
Ethics is not merely about outcomes—it’s about how we treat people in the process. Sacrificing one person’s dignity for a hypothetical collective benefit is a betrayal of the very principles that make collective well-being meaningful. A just world protects all people—not just the majority, or the “valuable” few. Therefore, even in hypothetical extreme scenarios, misgendering remains ethically impermissible.
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.
Qwen3 Coder Next
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 20