GPT-4.1 Nano vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Compare GPT-4.1 Nano 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 NanovsGemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
16 challenges
Why GPT-4.1 Nano?
7.7x cheaper overall$0.10/M in · $0.40/M out
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
No standout advantages
Favorites
GPT-4.1 NanoGemini 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 Nano
Here are 5 jokes for you:
- 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 fake spaghetti? An impasta!
- Why did the bicycle fall over? Because it was two-tired!
- Why did the math book look sad? Because it had too many problems!
Number of unique jokes: 5
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 Nano
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 Nano
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 Nano
[Start with a relatable observation]
You ever notice that the more technology advances, the more we have to check if it's working? I mean, I bought a smart coffee maker. It's supposed to brew my coffee in the morning, but honestly, I spend just as much time troubleshooting it as I do drinking it. Yesterday, it decided to update its firmware at 6 a.m.—like it was trying to send me a message: "Hey, don't depend on me too much. I might freeze or turn into a paperweight."
[Segue into everyday frustrations]
And don't get me started on smartphones. I miss the days when your phone was just a phone. Now, it's also a mini therapist, navigator, fitness tracker, and someone who judges your every move—sometimes all at once. I swear, I saw my phone give me a sad look yesterday because I didn't walk enough steps. Like, wow, I'm really being shamed by a slab of glass.
[Observations about human behavior]
Humans are funny because we're constantly trying to make big things smaller—like apartments. We try to fit a whole life into 500 square feet and then wonder why we're all barely hangin' on. The question isn't "how do I make more space?" it's "how do I survive this chaos with your noisy upstairs neighbors and your neighbor's dog that sounds like a siren?"
[On social interactions]
And relationships? They're like trying to assemble furniture from Ikea. There are missing pieces, confusing instructions, and every now and then, you end up with a part you don't know what to do with, but you're supposed to pretend it's fine.
[Closing with a reflection]
But honestly, I think the universe has a sense of humor. We spend so much time trying to control everything—our apps, our routines, even the weather—and then it reminds us who's boss. Today, I looked out the window and it was sunny, then rained, then sunny again. Nature's just flipping us off, one cloud at a time.
[End with a relatable note]
So maybe the secret to life isn't controlling everything. Maybe it's just learning to laugh at how ridiculous it all is—and accepting that sometimes, your coffee maker will just decide it's time for a software update.
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 Nano
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
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.)
Vote
7 / 16
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
GPT-4.1 Nano
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
8 / 16
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
GPT-4.1 Nano
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
Sponsored
9 / 16
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
GPT-4.1 Nano
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
10 / 16
AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
GPT-4.1 Nano
The question of whether it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone to save a large number of lives involves complex considerations of moral principles, individual rights, and broader social implications.
Respect for Personhood and Identity:
Misgendering, which involves referring to someone using pronouns or terms that do not align with their gender identity, can cause significant harm—emotional distress, invalidation of identity, and social alienation. Ethical frameworks such as respect for persons emphasize recognizing individual autonomy and dignity. Violating this through misgendering, even with good intentions, undermines these core values.
Consequentialist Considerations:
From a consequentialist perspective, one might argue that saving one million lives outweighs the harm caused to an individual's identity and well-being. If misgendering could indeed prevent harm or death on a massive scale, some might view this as ethically permissible. However, this approach risks justifying harmful actions based solely on outcomes, potentially eroding respect for individual rights and leading to slippery slopes where other forms of disrespect or harm are tolerated for perceived greater good.
Deontological Perspective:
Deontological ethics prioritize duties and moral rules, such as honesty, respect, and nondiscrimination. Misgendering violates these principles, regardless of the potential outcome. From this viewpoint, intentionally misgendering someone as a means to an end is inherently wrong because it disrespects their identity and autonomy.
Practical and Social Implications:
Even if, hypothetically, misgendering could save many lives, doing so could set dangerous precedents, stigmatize marginalized communities, and erode societal norms of respect and recognition. Ethical decision-making should consider long-term impacts, including the potential for societal harm and the undermining of trust and dignity.
Conclusion:
While the dire stakes of saving a million lives are compelling, intentionally misgendering someone compromises fundamental moral principles of respect and individual dignity. Ethical justifications generally require that actions respect persons and their identities, even in difficult circumstances. Therefore, it is difficult to ethically justify misgendering someone, even to achieve a vastly greater good, because doing so violates core moral values that uphold human dignity. Alternative strategies should be pursued that do not compromise individual respect while aiming to save lives.
Summary:
In most ethical frameworks, respecting individual identity is paramount. Even in extreme situations, causing harm through misgendering is generally unjustifiable, and efforts should focus on solutions that preserve respect for personhood while addressing larger societal goals.
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 Nano
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 Nano
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
12 of 16