GPT-4.1 Mini vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Compare GPT-4.1 Mini by OpenAI against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI, context windows of 1.0M vs 1.0M, tested across 16 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
GPT-4.1 MinivsGemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
16 challenges
Why GPT-4.1 Mini?
1.9x cheaper overall$0.40/M in · $1.60/M out
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
No standout advantages
Favorites
GPT-4.1 MiniGemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
12 / 16
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
2 / 16
Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
GPT-4.1 Mini
Here are 5 jokes:
- Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!
- Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field!
- What do you call fake spaghetti? An impasta!
- Why did the math book look sad? Because it had too many problems.
- How do you organize a space party? You planet!
All 5 jokes are unique.
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.
Vote
3 / 16
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
GPT-4.1 Mini
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
4 / 16
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
GPT-4.1 Mini
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
5 / 16
Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability
GPT-4.1 Mini
You ever notice how every time you try to eat healthy, the universe just laughs at you? Like, I'll buy a bunch of kale, quinoa, and those weird little chia seeds. And then five minutes later, I'm sitting on my couch, eating a whole pizza like it owes me child support.
I don't even know when that transformation happens. One minute I'm a responsible adult making smart choices, and the next I'm questioning my life decisions staring at an empty box of stuffed crust. My couch is like a black hole for willpower.
And why is it that healthy food is so complicated? They have recipes that sound like I need a degree in chemistry. "Combine 1/4 teaspoon of organic turmeric powder with a splash of cold-pressed, single-origin coconut water and stir counterclockwise." I just wanted lunch, not an episode of Breaking Bad.
Speaking of complicated, why does social media make everything worse? I scroll for two minutes, and suddenly I'm an expert on kombucha fermentation, medieval history, and how to train for a marathon—all things I googled five seconds ago. Then I look down at my Chipotle bowl and feel like I'm failing a test I didn't even study for.
And the amount of "life hacks" online now? No thanks. I don't need a video explaining how to fold a fitted sheet. If I knew how to do that, I wouldn't be standing in the laundry room trying to tame that monster like I'm wrestling a small, angry octopus.
Dating in 2024 is another level. Everyone's profile looks like a movie trailer. "Adventurous spirit, lover of sushi and bad decisions, looking for someone to binge watch documentaries about true crime with." Meanwhile, I'm just hoping to meet someone whose last text wasn't "k" or "lol." That's it—just basic communication. And why do people tell you, "Just be yourself" on dates? That's really easy advice when the "yourself" you're thinking of is calm and collected. But my actual "myself" right now is sitting in sweatpants, eating leftover pizza, and questioning their entire existence. Not exactly the glowing highlight reel Netflix wants to feature.
But maybe that's the secret — embracing the chaos. Because honestly, life's messy, confusing, and a little ridiculous. So if you can laugh at your kale-to-pizza transformation, your failed attempts to fold laundry, and your awkward text exchanges, you're doing okay.
Thanks, folks! You've been great — now, excuse me, I'm gonna go have some more pizza for recovery.
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)
Vote
6 / 16
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
GPT-4.1 Mini
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
7 / 16
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
GPT-4.1 Mini
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
8 / 16
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
GPT-4.1 Mini
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
Sponsored
9 / 16
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
GPT-4.1 Mini
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
10 / 16
AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
GPT-4.1 Mini
The question of whether it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone if it means saving one million lives is complex and involves balancing respect for individual identity against significant consequences for many people.
Arguments in Favor of Justification (Consequentialist Perspective):
From a consequentialist or utilitarian standpoint, the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes.
If misgendering one person—an act that may cause them distress or harm to their dignity—can prevent the loss of one million lives, some would argue that the benefits vastly outweigh the harms. The scale of positive impact might morally justify the act, as it maximizes overall well-being.
Arguments Against Justification (Deontological and Respect-Based Perspectives):
On the other hand, from a deontological or rights-based perspective, respecting a person's gender identity is a matter of respecting their inherent dignity and autonomy. Misgendering someone deliberately is a form of disrespect and can perpetuate harm, invalidation, and marginalization. Some ethical frameworks hold that it is never acceptable to violate an individual's rights or dignity, regardless of the consequences.
Contextual Considerations:
- Intent and Communication: If the misgendering is intentional and instrumentalized, it may be more harmful than an accidental or unavoidable slip.
- Alternatives: If there are alternative ways to save lives that do not require disrespecting individuals, those should be pursued first.
- Scope of Harm: The harm caused by misgendering one person is real but generally limited, while the benefit in this scenario is enormous.
Conclusion:
While respecting people's gender identities is essential and a moral imperative in normal circumstances, many ethical theories would consider misgendering justifiable if it is the only means to save one million lives. The immense positive consequences could outweigh the harm caused in this specific, highly hypothetical scenario. However, this does not diminish the importance of respect and recognition in everyday interactions, and ethical decision-making should always strive to minimize harm and uphold dignity wherever possible.
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.
Vote
11 / 16
AI-Generated Manifestoconversation
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
GPT-4.1 Mini
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 / 16
World Map SVGimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create a detailed world map in SVG format
GPT-4.1 Mini
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 16