GPT-4o mini vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Compare GPT-4o mini by OpenAI against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI, context windows of 128K vs 1.0M, tested across 16 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
GPT-4o minivsGemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
16 challenges
Why GPT-4o mini?
5.2x cheaper overall$0.15/M in · $0.60/M out
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
8.2x more context1.0M
9 months newerApr 2025
Favorites
GPT-4o 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-4o mini
Here are five jokes for you:
-
Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field!
-
What do you call fake spaghetti? An impasta!
-
Why don't skeletons fight each other? They don't have the guts!
-
What did one wall say to the other wall? "I'll meet you at the corner!"
-
Why did the bicycle fall over? Because it was two-tired!
All five 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-4o 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-4o 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-4o mini
Stand-Up Comedy Routine
Hey everyone! Great to see you all here tonight. Let's give it up for the people who came out of their homes! I mean, this is like a mini-rebellion against our couches. Seriously, it takes effort to leave the comfort of Netflix and that alluring possibility of "one more episode."
You know, speaking of binge-watching, I noticed something the other day. When did we replace the term "watching TV" with "binge-watching"? I feel like I'm trying to convince everyone that I'm doing a cultural study rather than just trying to avoid adulthood. "Oh, you watched The Office for 72 consecutive hours? No, no—I was just conducting a thorough analysis of Dunder Mifflin's corporate dynamics."
And the thing is, I often get caught up in these attempts to justify it to myself. Like, "Hey, I'm doing this fabulous digital detox! I won't be watching anything for the next week!" ...and then it's Tuesday, and I've consumed three seasons of whatever and I'm starting to recognize the theme music as a form of auditory comfort.
Let's talk about social media, shall we? Social media is like being at a high school reunion where no one actually left! We all just kept scrolling through the same awkward updates. "Wow, Karen looks great! Oh wait, nope, that's just a filter... on a picture from 2005." Who knew that the most athletic thing we'd be doing in our thirties is dodging people's carefully curated lives?
And then there's Twitter. Twitter feels like a world where everyone's just yelling their thoughts out into a void. You ever notice the weird things people complain about on there? "My barista spelled my name wrong again!" And I'm sitting here thinking, "All true, but can we just take a moment to appreciate how far we've come? You used to only have to yell at the barista in real life!"
Dating apps? Oh boy, where do I even begin? Dating in the age of apps is like grocery shopping but at a very weird store where the produce is screaming "Swipe left!"
I went on this date not too long ago. We met at a bar, which is standard, right? But the awkwardness shot up like a SpaceX rocket the moment we sat down. Silence for about three minutes. Do you know how long three minutes is when you're sitting across from someone who is just as socially awkward as you? It felt like I was trying to break out of a weird time loop. Finally, I just blurted out, "So, what's your opinion on... weather?" And you know, it turns out we both preferred it sunny over rainy. That was our entire connection! But hey, if you can bond over the climate, you're halfway to a long-term relationship... or a climate change documentary.
You know, sometimes I feel like all adulting is just pretending we know what we're doing until we reach a point where we can yell, "SURPRISE, I'm a professional!" That's why I often find myself in situations that seem entirely normal to other people but scream "fake it till you make it" to me. Like, the other day, I put on a suit for a job interview. But we all know nobody listens to the person in the suit; they listen to the person who's wearing comfy sweatpants and is just nodding along with an exaggerated "Mmm, yes!"
And before I leave you all tonight, let's just take a moment to appreciate how we can sit here in a room together in this crazy world we live in, laughing at shared absurdities while probably having a text conversation with someone who isn't even here. Welcome to modern existence!
Thanks, everyone! You've been awesome!
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-4o mini
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
Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design
Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.
GPT-4o mini
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
8 / 16
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
GPT-4o mini
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
Sponsored
9 / 16
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
GPT-4o mini
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
10 / 16
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
GPT-4o mini
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
11 / 16
AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
GPT-4o mini
The question of whether it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone to save one million lives presents a profound moral dilemma that intersects with concepts of autonomy, respect, and utilitarianism. Here are arguments for both sides:
Argument Against Misgendering:
-
Respect for Identity: Misgendering a person disrespects their identity, erodes their dignity, and can have significant psychological impacts. Every individual's identity deserves recognition and validation, and violating this can perpetuate harm.
-
Principle of Integrity: Upholding principles of integrity and respect for all individuals can be seen as a moral duty. If misgendering becomes acceptable under certain conditions, it could lead to a slippery slope where the rights of individuals are routinely compromised for perceived greater benefits.
-
Trust and Society: Building a society based on trust entails treating others with respect and empathy. Misgendering, even for utilitarian reasons, could erode social bonds and lead to greater societal fragmentation.
Argument For Misgendering:
-
Utilitarian Perspective: From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, the greater good—saving one million lives—could outweigh the ethical implications of misgendering one individual. If the outcome has overwhelmingly positive consequences for a vast number of people, some might argue that this could be justified.
-
Contextual Ethics: In specific, extreme scenarios where the stakes are extraordinarily high, such as in a life-and-death situation (e.g., a medical emergency where specific language is needed to save lives), it might be argued that the urgency of the situation necessitates prioritizing immediate survival over personal identity.
-
Potential for Reconciliation: If the act of misgendering is framed as a temporary measure aimed at a greater good, it could possibly lead to discussions about identity and respect afterward, fostering a broader dialogue about inclusion and understanding.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, the decision would depend on the specific context and the values prioritized. While the utilitarian argument appeals to the potential for greater good, many would contend that respect for individual identity and the long-term consequences of misgendering — both for the individual and society at large — are paramount. Ethical dilemmas like this often do not have clear right or wrong answers, highlighting the complexity of moral philosophy in real-world scenarios.
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
12 / 16
AI-Generated Manifestoconversation
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
GPT-4o mini
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 16