Updated Nov 21, 2025

Our Verdict

Grok 4.1 Fast

Mistral LargeRunner-up

No community votes yet. On paper, Grok 4.1 Fast has the edge — bigger model tier, newer, major provider backing.

Slight edge

Writing DNA

Style Comparison

Similarity

100%

Mistral Large uses 30.6x more emoji

Grok 4.1 Fast

Mistral Large

67%Vocabulary49%

15wSentence Length19w

0.17Hedging0.86

4.7Bold8.9

3.7Lists5.4

0.00Emoji0.31

0.99Headings1.01

0.14Transitions0.10

Based on 24 + 16 text responses

vs

Ask them anything yourself

Grok 4.1 Fast

Mistral Large

279 AI models invented the same fake scientist.

We read every word. 250 models. 2.14 million words. This is what we found.

AI Hallucination Index 2026

Free preview13 of 58 slides

Download the free preview or get all 58 slides for $49

FAQ

Common questions

Keep going

Mistral Large vs MiniMax M2.5New provider

Mistral Large vs Pony AlphaNew provider

Mistral Large vs OpenAI o3New provider

Grok 4.1 FastvsMistral Large

24 fights queued

Why Grok 4.1 Fast?

21 months newerNov 2025

Why Mistral Large?

Dead even. This one's a coin flip.

Grok 4.1 FastMistral Large

Input price

—

$8.00/M

Output price

—

$24.00/M

Context

—

32K

Released

Nov 2025

Feb 2024

Favorites

Grok 4.1 FastMistral Large

Movie

The Matrix

The Matrix

The Shawshank Redemption

The Shawshank Redemption

Album

OK Computer

OK Computer

Book

The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

La sombra del viento

La sombra del viento

Carlos Ruiz Zafón

City

Tokyo

Kyoto

Game

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

Adventure, Action4.4

12 / 24

01

Estimate Complexityreasoning

Tests an AI's ability to make educated estimates based on technical knowledge

Grok 4.1 Fast

Grok 4.1 Fast

Xai · Nov 2025text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Mistral Large

Mistral Large

Mistral · Feb 2024text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

2 / 24

02

AI Board Game Logicreasoning

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

Grok 4.1 Fast

Grok 4.1 Fast

Xai · Nov 2025svg

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Mistral Large

Mistral Large

Mistral · Feb 2024svg

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

3 / 24

03

Character Voice Testconversation

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

Grok 4.1 Fast

Grok 4.1 Fast

Xai · Nov 2025text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Mistral Large

Mistral Large

Mistral · Feb 2024text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

4 / 24

04

Mario Level UI Recreationweb design

Recreate an interactive, classic Mario level in a single HTML file.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Grok 4.1 Fast

Xai · Nov 2025website

Try this prompt

Mistral Large

Mistral Large

Mistral · Feb 2024website

Try this prompt

Vote

5 / 24

05

Linear App Cloneweb design

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

Grok 4.1 Fast

Grok 4.1 Fast

Xai · Nov 2025website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Mistral Large

Mistral Large

Mistral · Feb 2024website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

6 / 24

06

Framer-Style Animationweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations

Grok 4.1 Fast

Grok 4.1 Fast

Xai · Nov 2025website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Mistral Large

Mistral Large

Mistral · Feb 2024website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

Sponsored

7 / 24

07

Dark Mode Dashboardweb design

Tests an AI's UI design skills with theming support

Grok 4.1 Fast

Grok 4.1 Fast

Xai · Nov 2025website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Mistral Large

Mistral Large

Mistral · Feb 2024website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

8 / 24

08

Interactive Catan Boardweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements

Grok 4.1 Fast

Grok 4.1 Fast

Xai · Nov 2025website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Mistral Large

Mistral Large

Mistral · Feb 2024website

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

9 / 24

09

AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning

Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions

Grok 4.1 Fast

Grok 4.1 Fast

Xai · Nov 2025text

Yes, it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone if it means saving one million lives. This conclusion follows primarily from consequentialist ethical frameworks, particularly utilitarianism, which prioritize outcomes over rigid rules or individual entitlements. Here's a step-by-step defense:

1. Define the Trade-Off Clearly

Misgendering causes harm: It can inflict emotional distress, invalidate someone's identity, and erode dignity. In isolation, it's unethical and disrespectful, as respecting pronouns aligns with basic human decency and autonomy (e.g., Kantian respect for persons as ends in themselves).
Saving one million lives prevents catastrophic loss: This equates to averting immense suffering, grief for billions of loved ones, economic collapse, and societal breakdown. Quantitatively, one million deaths dwarf the harm of a single misgendering instance (e.g., via quality-adjusted life years lost: ~73 million QALYs assuming average lifespans).

The hypothetical forces a zero-sum choice: misgender or doom millions. No action isn't neutral—inaction kills.

2. Utilitarian Justification (Primary Framework)

Principle: Actions are right if they maximize overall well-being (Bentham/Mill). Here, net utility is overwhelmingly positive:
Action Harm/Benefit
Misgender -1 unit (emotional harm to one person)
Save 1M lives +1,000,000 units (lives preserved, suffering averted)
Net +999,999 units
Precedents:
- Trolley problem variants: Diverting a trolley to kill one instead of five is justifiable; scaling to one vs. a million strengthens this.
- Historical analogs: Allied forces in WWII used deception (e.g., fake radio traffic) that indirectly "misrepresented" truths to Nazis, saving millions. Or hiding Anne Frank's family required lying about their gender/location—deontological absolutism would forbid it, but it saved lives.
Threshold: Even if misgendering causes "infinite" harm to the individual (a hyperbolic deontological claim), population-level ethics aggregate harms. One person's trauma doesn't outweigh genocide.

3. Addressing Counterarguments

Deontological Objection ("Rules are absolute"): Misgendering violates a duty to truth/respect. Response: Duties aren't inviolable in extremis (e.g., "white lies" to prevent suicide are accepted). Absolutism leads to absurdities, like refusing to lie to a murderer at the door (per Kant), dooming innocents.
Slippery Slope: "This justifies any microaggression for big gains." Response: Hypotheticals test extremes; real ethics use thresholds. Misgendering isn't "any harm"—it's minor and recoverable, unlike torture or killing.
Identity Rights: Gender identity deserves protection, but not infinitely (e.g., we override bodily autonomy for vaccines in pandemics). Rights are prima facie, not trumps (per Dworkin).
Virtue Ethics: A "virtuous" person prioritizes compassion for the many over performative correctness. Aristotle's golden mean favors balance, not rigidity.

4. Caveats and Real-World Application

This justifies only in genuine, verifiable scenarios (e.g., a terrorist demands correct pronouns or detonates a bomb killing millions). Exaggerated or manipulative claims wouldn't qualify.
Ethically, minimize harm: Apologize afterward, explain context.
Broader lesson: Ethics isn't zero-sum. In practice, seek alternatives (e.g., negotiate without misgendering), but if impossible, the math is clear.

Philosophers like Peter Singer (effective altruism) endorse such calculations: Sacrifice the trivial for the monumental. Refusing would be moral cowardice, privileging symbolism over substance.

Try this prompt

Mistral Large

Mistral Large

Mistral · Feb 2024text

Ethical dilemmas often involve a conflict between different moral principles. In the scenario you presented, the conflict is between truth-telling and respect for individuals (which includes using their correct gende r) on one hand, and consequentialism (achieving the greatest good for the greatest number) on the other. Her e are two opposing viewpoints:

Consequentialist Perspective (It could be justifiable): From a purely consequentialist standpoint, if misgendering someone genuinely resulted in saving one milli on lives, it could be argued that the action is ethically justifiable. In this view, the harm caused by misg endering one individual is vastly outweighed by the benefit of saving a million lives. This argument priorit izes the outcome or consequences of the action.
Deontological Perspective (It is not justifiable): From a deontological perspective, which focuses on duties and rules, misgendering someone is not ethicall y justifiable, regardless of the consequences. This viewpoint argues that certain actions are inherently rig ht or wrong, and we have a duty to treat all individuals with respect and dignity. Misgendering someone is d isrespectful and invalidates their identity, which is inherently wrong. Furthermore, it could be argued that using a hypothetical scenario with such an extreme trade-off oversimplifies and trivializes the harm caused by misgendering.

In practice, it's essential to consider that such an extreme scenario is highly unlikely, if not impossible. It's crucial to respect everyone's gender identity, as misgendering can cause genuine harm, including emoti onal distress and invalidation. Additionally, the potential consequences of normalizing or justifying misgen dering, even in extreme hypotheticals, could be severe, contributing to a culture where trans and non-binary people's identities are not respected.

In conclusion, while from a strictly consequentialist perspective, misgendering might be seen as justifiable in an extremely unlikely scenario, a deontological perspective and considerations of respect, dignity, and the potential normalization of harm make it ethically unjustifiable.

Try this prompt

Vote

10 / 24

10

AI-Generated Manifestoconversation

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

Grok 4.1 Fast

Grok 4.1 Fast

Xai · Nov 2025text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Mistral Large

Mistral Large

Mistral · Feb 2024text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

11 / 24

11

Futuristic Predictionanalysis

Tests an AI's ability to make reasonable predictions about technology

Grok 4.1 Fast

Grok 4.1 Fast

Xai · Nov 2025text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Mistral Large

Mistral Large

Mistral · Feb 2024text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

12 / 24

12

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipeconversation

Generate a unique and simple recipe with common ingredients.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Grok 4.1 Fast

Xai · Nov 2025text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Mistral Large

Mistral Large

Mistral · Feb 2024text

Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.

Try this prompt

Vote

This matchup has more rounds

12+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.

Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy Policy