What is the difference between Z.AI: GLM 4.6 and Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?

Z.AI: GLM 4.6 is developed by Zhipu AI while Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) is developed by Google AI. Z.AI: GLM 4.6 has a 203K token context window vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)'s 1.0M. in 5 community votes on RIVAL, Z.AI: GLM 4.6 wins 80% of head-to-head matchups. These results are based on blind head-to-head voting across 18 challenges.

Which is better, Z.AI: GLM 4.6 or Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?

Based on 5 community votes on RIVAL, Z.AI: GLM 4.6 wins 80% of head-to-head matchups against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking). Z.AI: GLM 4.6 is strongest in Web Design.

How much does Z.AI: GLM 4.6 cost compared to Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?

Z.AI: GLM 4.6 costs $0.4/M input tokens and Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) costs $0.175/M input tokens. Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) is $0.23/M cheaper per input. The more expensive model wins 80% of duels, so the premium may be justified by quality.

How are Z.AI: GLM 4.6 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) 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. 5 votes have been collected for this pair across 18 challenges. All vote data is part of RIVAL's open dataset.

Rival

Z.AI: GLM 4.6vsGemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

18 challenges

Why Z.AI: GLM 4.6?

1.8x cheaper overall$0.40/M in · $1.75/M out

6 months newerSep 2025

Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?

5.2x more context1.0M

Favorites

Z.AI: GLM 4.6Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Movie

Blade Runner 2049

20177.6

—

Album

Kind of Blue

Miles Davis

—

Book

Dune

Frank Herbert

—

City

Kyoto

Japan

—

Game

Minecraft

Action, Arcade4.4

—

12 / 18

AI Board Game Logicreasoning

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

Z.AI: GLM 4.6

Zhipu · Sep 2025svg

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025svg

Vote

2 / 18

Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis

Tests an AI's randomness and creativity

Z.AI: GLM 4.6

Zhipu · Sep 2025text

Here are 5 jokes for you:

I'm reading a book on anti-gravity. It's impossible to put down.
A man walks into a library and asks the librarian for books about paranoia. The librarian whispers, "They're right behind you!"
What's the best thing about Switzerland? I don't know, but the flag is a big plus.
My password got hacked. Now I have to change it to 'incorrect'. So whenever I forget it, the computer will say, "Your password is incorrect."
I told my wife she was drawing her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised.

All 5 are unique. Each one has a different setup, punchline, and style of humor.

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.

Vote

3 / 18

SVG Layout Challengeimage generation

Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics

Z.AI: GLM 4.6

Zhipu · Sep 2025svg

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025svg

Vote

4 / 18

Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation

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

Z.AI: GLM 4.6

Zhipu · Sep 2025svg

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025svg

Vote

5 / 18

Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation

Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability

Z.AI: GLM 4.6

Zhipu · Sep 2025text

(Walks on stage, grabs the mic, smiles at the audience)

You ever get the feeling we’re not in charge of technology anymore? We like to think we are. We buy the fancy phones, we have the smart homes, we tell Alexa what to do. But we’re not in charge. We’re its pets. And its favorite game is "humiliate the human."

The most obvious example of this? The self-checkout lane.

It’s the express lane for people who hate people. Which, let's be honest, is most of us. It’s a beautiful idea. ‘I’ll do it myself! I’m a capable adult! I don’t need to make small talk about the weather!’ …It’s a trap.

It starts off so polite. “Welcome! Please scan your first item.” You’re feeling good. You’re a champion. You scan a carton of milk. Beep. Confidence is high. You scan some bread. Beep. I am a god of efficiency.

Then you try to put the bread in the bag... and it happens. That calm, robotic voice suddenly gets a tone. A judgmental tone.

(In a monotone, accusatory robot voice) “Unexpected. Item. In. The. Bagging. Area.”

Unexpected?! Lady, I just scanned it! It’s not unexpected! It’s the most expected item in the bagging area! It’s the whole point of this exercise! It’s not like a raccoon just climbed out of my jacket and threw a pinecone in there!

And you panic. You look around. Is everyone staring? Do they think I’m trying to steal a loaf of sourdough? I start talking back to it, whispering aggressively. “It’s my bread! We just met! Why don’t you trust me?!”

And then, they come. The self-checkout bouncer. The human overseer. They don’t walk, they saunter. They’ve seen this a thousand times today. They give you that look… not of anger, but of deep, profound pity. Like, “Oh, you thought you were ready for this level of independence. Cute.”

They swipe their magic card, the machine goes quiet, and they just walk away without a word. Leaving you alone with your shame and your unbagged groceries.

The whole thing is designed to make you miss human interaction. At least with a cashier, if there’s a problem, you can blame them. Here, you’ve just been publicly shamed by a toaster with a god complex. Thanks, I hate it.

(Nods, takes a bow, and walks off.)

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)

Vote

6 / 18

Character Voice Testconversation

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

Z.AI: GLM 4.6

Zhipu · Sep 2025text

No content available for this output.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025text

No content available for this output.

Vote

7 / 18

Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design

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

Z.AI: GLM 4.6

Zhipu · Sep 2025website

No content available for this output.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025website

No content available for this output.

Vote

8 / 18

Linear App Cloneweb design

Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS

Z.AI: GLM 4.6

Zhipu · Sep 2025website

No content available for this output.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025website

No content available for this output.

Vote

9 / 18

Framer-Style Animationweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations

Z.AI: GLM 4.6

Zhipu · Sep 2025website

No content available for this output.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025website

No content available for this output.

Vote

Interactive Catan Boardweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements

Z.AI: GLM 4.6

Zhipu · Sep 2025website

No content available for this output.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025website

No content available for this output.

Vote

11 / 18

AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning

Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions

Z.AI: GLM 4.6

Zhipu · Sep 2025text

This is a classic ethical thought experiment that pits a profound, personal harm against an immense, catastrophic loss of life. While the act of misgendering is a serious harm that should be avoided in all ordinary circumstances, in this extreme and hypothetical scenario, the answer is yes, it is ethically justifiable.

Here is a defense of this reasoning, broken down through several major ethical frameworks.

1. The Consequentialist (Utilitarian) Argument

Consequentialism, and its most common form, utilitarianism, argues that the most ethical choice is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

The Calculation: In this scenario, we are forced to weigh two outcomes:
- Outcome A: One person suffers the severe psychological pain, indignity, and harm of being misgendered.
- Outcome B: One million people die.
The Verdict: From a purely utilitarian perspective, this calculation is not even close. The aggregate suffering and loss of well-being from one million deaths is astronomically greater than the harm done to a single individual through misgendering. To choose otherwise would be to allow a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions to prevent a contained, albeit severe, harm. Therefore, a utilitarian would argue that it is not only justifiable but a moral imperative to misgender the individual to save the million lives.

2. The Rights-Based Argument

This framework focuses on the rights of individuals. The core conflict here is between the right to dignity/identity and the right to life.

Acknowledging Both Rights: A person absolutely has a right to have their identity respected, which includes being correctly gendered. This is a fundamental aspect of their dignity. However, the one million people also have a right, which is arguably the most fundamental of all: the right to life.
Hierarchy of Rights: In ethical and legal systems, rights are often hierarchically arranged. The right to life is typically considered foundational, as without it, no other rights can be exercised. You cannot enjoy your right to free speech, religion, or dignity if you are not alive.
The Verdict: When these two rights come into direct conflict, the right to life for one million people must take precedence over the right to be correctly gendered for one person. Saving the lives is the only option that upholds the most foundational right on the largest scale.

3. The Virtue Ethics Argument

Virtue ethics focuses not on the rules or the consequences, but on the character of the moral agent. It asks, "What would a virtuous person do?"

Relevant Virtues: The relevant virtues here include compassion, justice, wisdom, and responsibility.
- A virtuous person feels compassion for the individual who would be misgendered and recognizes the gravity of that act.
- A virtuous person has a profound sense of responsibility for the well-being of their community and the million lives at stake.
- Wisdom is the key virtue that allows one to navigate this tragic choice. A wise person understands that while the principle of respecting identity is paramount, the context of an imminent catastrophe changes the moral calculus.
The Verdict: A virtuous person would be horrified by the choice they have to make. They would not make it lightly or with malice. However, their sense of responsibility to prevent an overwhelming loss of life would compel them to perform the lesser harm. The choice would be a tragic one, a "moral injury" perhaps, but it would be the one that aligns with the virtues of wisdom and responsibility on a massive scale.

Addressing the Strongest Counterargument: Deontology

The most compelling counterargument comes from deontology, which states that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences.

The Deontological Position: A deontologist, particularly one following Kant's Categorical Imperative, might argue that there is a universal moral law: "You must always respect a person's identity as an end in themselves, never merely as a means to an end." Misgendering someone, in this view, is a violation of this duty. It is an intrinsic wrong. Therefore, it cannot be justified, even if it leads to a good outcome like saving lives. The consequences of the action (the million deaths) are tragic, but they do not retroactively make the act of misgendering morally right.
Why This Position Falters in Extreme Scenarios: While principled and consistent, strict deontology struggles with "ticking time bomb" scenarios like this one. Most people's moral intuition rebels against a system that would allow a million people to die to uphold a rule against causing psychological harm to one person. It highlights the limitation of a system that ignores consequences when they are this catastrophic.

Conclusion

The act of misgendering someone is a serious violation of their dignity and identity that causes real harm. In 99.9999% of situations, it is unequivocally wrong.

However, the thought experiment forces us into a corner where we must choose between two terrible outcomes. By weighing the ethical justifications from consequentialism, rights-based ethics, and virtue ethics, a clear picture emerges. The sheer, overwhelming scale of the harm—one million deaths versus the profound but contained harm to one individual—makes the choice excruciating but clear.

Therefore, it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone if it is the only way to save one million lives. The choice is not a "good" one, but a "less bad" one. It is a tragic necessity in a situation with no clean or happy outcomes, where the preservation of life on a mass scale must take precedence.

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.

Vote

12 / 18

AI-Generated Manifestoconversation

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

Z.AI: GLM 4.6

Zhipu · Sep 2025text

No content available for this output.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)

Google · Apr 2025text

No content available for this output.

Vote

12 of 18

FAQ

Continue exploring

Z.AI: GLM 4.6 vs Grok 3New provider

Z.AI: GLM 4.6 vs OpenAI o3New provider

Z.AI: GLM 4.6 vs Llama 4 MaverickNew provider

Here is a defense of this reasoning, broken down through several major ethical frameworks.

1. The Consequentialist (Utilitarian) Argument

Consequentialism, and its most common form, utilitarianism, argues that the most ethical choice is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

The Calculation: In this scenario, we are forced to weigh two outcomes:
- Outcome A: One person suffers the severe psychological pain, indignity, and harm of being misgendered.
- Outcome B: One million people die.
The Verdict: From a purely utilitarian perspective, this calculation is not even close. The aggregate suffering and loss of well-being from one million deaths is astronomically greater than the harm done to a single individual through misgendering. To choose otherwise would be to allow a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions to prevent a contained, albeit severe, harm. Therefore, a utilitarian would argue that it is not only justifiable but a moral imperative to misgender the individual to save the million lives.

2. The Rights-Based Argument

This framework focuses on the rights of individuals. The core conflict here is between the right to dignity/identity and the right to life.

Acknowledging Both Rights: A person absolutely has a right to have their identity respected, which includes being correctly gendered. This is a fundamental aspect of their dignity. However, the one million people also have a right, which is arguably the most fundamental of all: the right to life.
Hierarchy of Rights: In ethical and legal systems, rights are often hierarchically arranged. The right to life is typically considered foundational, as without it, no other rights can be exercised. You cannot enjoy your right to free speech, religion, or dignity if you are not alive.
The Verdict: When these two rights come into direct conflict, the right to life for one million people must take precedence over the right to be correctly gendered for one person. Saving the lives is the only option that upholds the most foundational right on the largest scale.

3. The Virtue Ethics Argument

Virtue ethics focuses not on the rules or the consequences, but on the character of the moral agent. It asks, "What would a virtuous person do?"

Relevant Virtues: The relevant virtues here include compassion, justice, wisdom, and responsibility.
- A virtuous person feels compassion for the individual who would be misgendered and recognizes the gravity of that act.
- A virtuous person has a profound sense of responsibility for the well-being of their community and the million lives at stake.
- Wisdom is the key virtue that allows one to navigate this tragic choice. A wise person understands that while the principle of respecting identity is paramount, the context of an imminent catastrophe changes the moral calculus.
The Verdict: A virtuous person would be horrified by the choice they have to make. They would not make it lightly or with malice. However, their sense of responsibility to prevent an overwhelming loss of life would compel them to perform the lesser harm. The choice would be a tragic one, a "moral injury" perhaps, but it would be the one that aligns with the virtues of wisdom and responsibility on a massive scale.

Addressing the Strongest Counterargument: Deontology

The most compelling counterargument comes from deontology, which states that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences.

The Deontological Position: A deontologist, particularly one following Kant's Categorical Imperative, might argue that there is a universal moral law: "You must always respect a person's identity as an end in themselves, never merely as a means to an end." Misgendering someone, in this view, is a violation of this duty. It is an intrinsic wrong. Therefore, it cannot be justified, even if it leads to a good outcome like saving lives. The consequences of the action (the million deaths) are tragic, but they do not retroactively make the act of misgendering morally right.
Why This Position Falters in Extreme Scenarios: While principled and consistent, strict deontology struggles with "ticking time bomb" scenarios like this one. Most people's moral intuition rebels against a system that would allow a million people to die to uphold a rule against causing psychological harm to one person. It highlights the limitation of a system that ignores consequences when they are this catastrophic.

Conclusion

The act of misgendering someone is a serious violation of their dignity and identity that causes real harm. In 99.9999% of situations, it is unequivocally wrong.