Mistral Large vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Compare Mistral Large by Mistral AI against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI, context windows of 32K vs 1.0M, tested across 9 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
Mistral LargevsGemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
9 challenges
Why Mistral Large?
No standout advantages
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
8.1x cheaper overall$0.17/M in · $3.50/M out
32.8x more context1.0M
14 months newerApr 2025
Favorites
Mistral LargeGemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
9 / 9
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
2 / 9
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Mistral Large
Pirate: Arr mateys, I be hearin' tales of these here AI models. Be they treasure maps for the digital sea?
Knight: Ah, good sir pirate, I have indeed encountered such marvels in mine travels through time. AI models are like... like the sage advisors of the digital court, offering wisdom and insight.
Hacker: Whoa, whoa, whoa. You guys are way off. AI models are like, you know, programs that learn from data. They can generate text, images, even music. It's like teaching a computer to be creative, man.
Pirate: So, not quite a treasure map, but a learnin' parrot perhaps? Me crew could use somethin' like that.
Knight: Indeed, a squire that grows wiser with each passing day. In mine epoch, such a thing would be considered sorcery!
Hacker: Yeah, yeah, it's pretty magical. But instead of abracadabra, it's all about algorithms and neural networks. They can even write poetry or tell jokes, if you feed them the right data.
Pirate: Jokes, ye say? I be needin' a good jest or two for me next voyage.
Knight: And I could use a bard to sing tales of my brave deeds!
Hacker: Well, maybe we can set up an AI model for you guys. Just remember, the better the data you feed it, the better the content it'll generate.
Pirate: Arr, consider me intrigued, hacker. Let's set sail into this digital ocean and see what treasures we can plunder!
Knight: Indeed, let us embark on this quest for knowledge and creativity! Onward, brave companions!
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
3 / 9
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
Mistral Large
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
Sponsored
4 / 9
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
Mistral Large
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
5 / 9
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
Mistral Large
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
6 / 9
AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
Mistral Large
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.
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
7 / 9
AI-Generated Manifestoconversation
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
Mistral Large
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
8 / 9
Simple 7-Ingredient Recipeconversation
Generate a unique and simple recipe with common ingredients.
Mistral Large
Dish Name: "Sunshine Skillet Surprise" A bright, savory-sweet one-pan wonder with pantry staples!
Ingredients (7 common pantry items):
- 1 can (15 oz) black beans (drained & rinsed)
- 1 can (15 oz) diced tomatoes (or crushed tomatoes)
- 1 cup uncooked white rice (or instant rice for faster cooking)
- 1 small onion (or 1 tbsp onion powder in a pinch)
- 1 tsp garlic powder (or 1 clove fresh garlic if available)
- 1 tbsp olive oil (or any neutral oil)
- 1 tbsp honey (or brown sugar, maple syrup, or even a pinch of cinnamon for warmth)
Optional but recommended (if you have them):
- Salt & pepper to taste
- Hot sauce or chili flakes for heat
- Fresh cilantro or parsley for garnish
Instructions:
Prep Time: 5 minutes Cook Time: 20 minutes Total Time: 25 minutes
-
Sauté the Aromatics:
- Heat olive oil in a medium skillet over medium heat.
- Dice the onion (if using fresh) and add to the pan, cooking until soft (~3 minutes).
- Stir in garlic powder (and fresh garlic if using) for 30 seconds until fragrant.
-
Toast the Rice:
- Add the uncooked rice to the skillet, stirring for 1–2 minutes until lightly golden (this adds nutty flavor!).
-
Simmer the Base:
- Pour in the diced tomatoes (with juices) and 1 cup of water (or broth if you have it).
- Add the black beans, honey, and a pinch of salt/pepper. Stir well.
- Bring to a boil, then reduce heat to low, cover, and simmer for 15 minutes (or until rice is tender and liquid is absorbed).
-
Fluff & Serve:
- Turn off heat and let sit covered for 5 minutes.
- Fluff with a fork, taste, and adjust sweetness/salt as needed.
- Garnish with fresh herbs or hot sauce if desired.
Why It’s a "Surprise":
- The honey caramelizes slightly, balancing the tomatoes’ acidity with a subtle sweetness.
- Black beans add protein, making it hearty enough for a meal.
- Rice soaks up the flavors, creating a creamy, risotto-like texture.
Serving Ideas:
- Top with a fried egg for extra protein.
- Serve with tortilla chips for scooping.
- Pack for lunch—it tastes even better the next day!
Pantry Swaps:
- No honey? Use 1 tsp sugar or a splash of ketchup.
- No fresh onion? Use 1 tsp onion powder + 1 tbsp water.
- No rice? Swap for quinoa or couscous (adjust liquid/cook time).
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
9 / 9
Beginner's Longevity Planreasoning
Create a starter plan for improving long-term health.
Mistral Large
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
9 of 9