Is Flash Better than Animated GIFs?

Asking if Flash is better than an animated GIF is rather like asking if a USB thumb drive is better than a floppy disk. Both have their purposes, and both can be useful - even if one is a bit limited and outdated. To compare:

Flash files are usually smaller than animated GIFs, because they don't store every single frame of an animation (usually, unless it is in fact a frame-by-frame Flash animation) and because they use vector art that requires only mathematical data defining parameters, rather than raster art that requires information for every last pixel. Raster images, sound, and video added to Flash can increase file size well over animated GIFs, though.

On that comparison, Flash can add sound and video. GIFs can't.

GIFs, however, don't require an added browser plugin/player. Flash does.

Flash is more likely to create a security vulnerability or open an exploit than an animated GIF.

Flash offers interactivity, with the ability to incorporate multiple user actions into a single file. The only way to do more than just click once on a GIF is with an image map.

Animated GIFs are simple enough that when you need a small, simple cycling animation, they're often the less complicated choice.

Transparency is easier to achieve in GIFs, without needing to update the embedding code with wmode.

Flash offers more color options. Animated GIFs are limited by their palette, while Flash isn't limited by much of anything (unless you choose to).

Image quality in Flash is usually better than in animated GIFs, which often lose data due to the limited color palette and compression options.

Flash is incompatible with some older devices, or even blocked on some portable devices or by browser plugins. GIFs usually aren't.

That's just a basic overview, but demonstrates why each has its uses. Is Flash better than an animated GIF? Not necessarily, but it is more advanced and has more features. Sometimes less is more.