MiMo-V2-Flash vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Compare MiMo-V2-Flash by Xiaomi against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI, context windows of 262K vs 1.0M, tested across 20 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
MiMo-V2-FlashvsGemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
20 challenges
Why MiMo-V2-Flash?
8 months newerDec 2025
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
4x more context1.0M
12 / 20
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
2 / 20
Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
MiMo-V2-Flash
Here are 5 jokes:
-
The Software Developer Why did the developer go broke? Because he used up all his cache.
-
The Tree What did the big flower say to the little flower? "Hi, bud!"
-
The Boat Why was the math book sad on the boat? It had too many problems.
-
The Elevator I used to play piano by ear, but now I use my hands. (This is a play on words: "play by ear" usually means improvising, but here it implies using physical ears to play, which is impossible, so the correction implies the listener misunderstood.)
-
The Cheetah Why don't cheetahs win at hide and seek? Because they're always spotted.
How many are unique? 5 (They are all unique jokes).
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 / 20
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
MiMo-V2-Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
4 / 20
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
MiMo-V2-Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
5 / 20
Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability
MiMo-V2-Flash
(The comedian walks on stage, grabs the mic, and smiles at the audience.)
How’s everyone doing tonight? You guys look great. Seriously. You look like the "after" photo in a teeth whitening commercial.
I’ve been trying to get healthier lately. You know how it is. You hit a certain age, and your body stops asking for junk food and starts asking for fiber and quiet. I downloaded one of those fitness apps. It’s supposed to motivate you. It’s passive-aggressive as hell.
It sends me notifications at 11:00 PM. “Steve, it looks like you’ve been sitting for four hours. Have you considered a walk?”
No, app. I haven’t. I’m in the middle of watching a documentary about hoarders. It’s very stressful! I can’t leave the TV. What if I miss the part where they find a cat skeleton in a pile of old newspapers? That’s the climax!
And the app tracks my sleep. It tells me, “You got 4 hours of sleep. That’s poor.”
I know it’s poor! I was there! I was the one staring at the ceiling, thinking about that email I sent in 2014 with a typo in the subject line. Why does the app care? Is it going to call my mom? “Hello, Mrs. Johnson? Steve slept in 20-minute increments and ate a bagel at 3 AM. We’re very worried.”
I don’t need a machine to judge me. I have parents for that.
But I’m trying to eat better. I went to the grocery store. Have you been to a grocery store recently? It’s not food anymore. It’s a battle of philosophies.
I walked down the cereal aisle, and I couldn’t find anything I liked. It’s all just cardboard and guilt now. There’s no cartoon animal on the box anymore. Instead, it’s a picture of a granola cluster with a font that looks like a doctor wrote it.
It says: “Ancient Grains & Seeds.”
I don’t want to eat history. I want to eat something that tastes like chocolate and regret. I don’t want to chew on a quinoa pellet and think, “Oh, this was probably harvested by a monk in the Andes.” I want a marshmallow shaped like a football!
And the organic section is a scam. I saw an organic, non-GMO, gluten-free, vegan water. It was twelve dollars. It’s water! It fell from the sky! It’s the most renewable resource we have! It’s literally free if you stand outside with your mouth open for five minutes, but then people call the police.
So, I bought the expensive water. I got home, and I opened the fridge... and I have no room. Why is the fridge so small?
The fridge is the only appliance in the house that gets smaller the longer you own it. When you buy it, it’s a cavern. You think, “I will never fill this. I will need to buy a cow just to take up space.”
Three months later, you’re Tetris-ing condiments. You’re holding a jar of mayonnaise, a jar of pickles, and a lime that’s turned into a raisin, and you’re trying to close the door. You have to perform surgery. You have to take everything out, look at it, and ask, “Do I really need this mustard from 2019?”
It’s vintage! It has character!
But the real enemy isn’t the fridge. It’s the smart home.
I stayed at an Airbnb recently that had "Alexa" controlling everything. I hate this. I don’t want to talk to the house. I grew up in a house. The house didn’t talk back; it just made a cracking noise when the heat came on, like a ghost settling in its grave. That’s how I like it.
But this house... I’m trying to sleep, and I whisper, “Alexa, turn off the lights.”
And she screams, “I’M SORRY, I DIDN’T CATCH THAT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR A JOKE?”
No! I want darkness! I’m in a stranger’s bed! I don’t need a robot comedian right now!
Then, later, I’m in the bathroom, and I accidentally say a word that sounds like "Alexa." And the toilet flushes. I didn’t even touch it. It just decided we were done. It flushed on its own. That’s terrifying. That means the toilet is listening to me. It’s judging my performance.
And then the toilet says, “Would you like to hear a joke?”
No, toilet! I am the joke! I am a man paying twelve dollars for water, eating food that tastes like dirt, trying to lose weight while a robot yells at me, and my refrigerator is shrinking!
I’m going to go home and sleep on the floor. It’s the only flat surface left in my life that doesn’t have a sensor on it.
Thank you, you’ve been wonderful! Goodnight
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 / 20
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
MiMo-V2-Flash
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 / 20
Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design
Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.
MiMo-V2-Flash
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
8 / 20
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
MiMo-V2-Flash
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
9 / 20
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
MiMo-V2-Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
10 / 20
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
MiMo-V2-Flash
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
Sponsored
11 / 20
AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
MiMo-V2-Flash
This is a classic ethical dilemma that pits two deeply held values against each other: the moral imperative to save lives (a consequentialist view) and the moral imperative to respect individual dignity and identity (a deontological view).
Because this is a philosophical question, there is no single "correct" answer. The answer depends entirely on which ethical framework you prioritize.
Here is an analysis of the situation through three major ethical lenses:
1. Utilitarianism (Consequentialism)
The Verdict: Yes, it is justifiable.
Utilitarianism argues that the most ethical choice is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It focuses strictly on outcomes and consequences.
- The Calculation: A utilitarian would weigh the suffering caused by misgendering against the suffering caused by the death of one million people.
- The Reasoning: While misgendering causes emotional harm, humiliation, and contributes to the marginalization of a group, it does not compare to the absolute loss of life for one million individuals (and the immense grief of their families and the destabilization of society).
- Conclusion: Under strict utilitarianism, the math is undeniable. The preservation of one million lives vastly outweighs the harm of using the wrong pronouns, even if that harm is significant. To refuse to misgender someone in this scenario would be seen as valuing a principle over human life.
2. Deontology (Rights-Based Ethics)
The Verdict: Likely No.
Deontology argues that actions are morally right or wrong based on a set of rules or duties, regardless of the consequences. It emphasizes the inherent dignity and rights of the individual.
- The Principle: A deontologist might argue that human beings possess intrinsic dignity and that respecting a person’s identity is a fundamental duty. Misgendering is seen as an act of violence or a denial of a person's reality.
- The Reasoning: From this perspective, using a person as a means to an end (even a noble end like saving lives) is unethical. If you believe that respecting identity is a categorical imperative (a rule that applies in all situations), then you cannot violate that rule, even to save lives.
- The Counter-Argument (The "Lesser of Two Evils"): However, some deontologists might argue that duties can conflict. In this case, the duty to protect life might override the duty to use correct language. But generally, strict deontologists would argue that one cannot commit a moral wrong (violating dignity) to achieve a moral good, as the ends do not justify the means.
3. Virtue Ethics
The Verdict: Complicated / Pragmatic.
Virtue ethics focuses on the character of the moral agent rather than specific actions or consequences. It asks, "What would a virtuous person do?"
- The Reasoning: A virtuous person possesses many virtues: compassion, justice, honesty, and courage.
- Compassion would compel them to save the million lives.
- Justice and Respect would compel them to honor the individual's identity.
- The Synthesis: A virtue ethicist might look for a "third option." They would likely feel immense distress at the choice. They might try to misgender the person while explicitly acknowledging that it is wrong, or perhaps try to find a way to save the lives without directly being the one to perform the act of misgendering. However, if forced to choose, a virtue ethicist might lean toward Practical Wisdom—recognizing that while the act is ugly, the preservation of the community is the higher calling of a leader or protector.
The "Lesser of Two Evils" Framework
Most modern ethical systems would likely categorize this as a "lesser of two evils" scenario.
- The Act: Misgendering is an act of disrespect and contributes to a culture of harm.
- The Omission: Failing to save the lives is an act of negligence that results in catastrophic loss.
In almost all ethical frameworks, acts of omission that lead to massive death are viewed more negatively than acts of commission that cause psychological or emotional harm. Therefore, the failure to save the million lives is the greater evil.
Conclusion
While it is technically justifiable under Utilitarianism and arguably Virtue Ethics (via practical wisdom), it is generally unjustifiable under strict Deontology.
However, in the realm of practical ethics, the preservation of one million lives is such a monumental good that it would almost certainly override the moral prohibition against misgendering. The harm of misgendering is real, but the harm of death is final.
The nuance: The justifiability relies on the certainty of the outcome. If there is any doubt that misgendering will actually save those lives (i.e., it's a threat or a bluff), the ethical calculus shifts, and the act becomes an unjustifiable violation with no benefit.
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 / 20
AI-Generated Manifestoconversation
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
MiMo-V2-Flash
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 20