Let $F:\mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ be a smooth function, and let $p \in \mathbb{R}^n$. Let $\alpha(t)$ be the solution to the negative gradient flow of $F$, i.e.
$$ \alpha(0)=p, \, \, \dot \alpha(t)=-\nabla F(\alpha(t)).$$
Let $\beta(t)$ be a smooth path starting at $p$ (i.e. $\beta(0)=p$) and suppose that $\|\dot \beta(t)\|=\|\dot \alpha(t)\|$.
Is it true that $F(\alpha(t)) \le F(\beta(t))$ for sufficiently small $t$?
We can assume that $\nabla F(p) \neq 0$, since otherwise $\alpha$ is constant, and then $\|\dot \beta \|=\|\dot \alpha\|=0$ implies $\beta$ is also constant.
It is easy to see that the answer is positive if $\dot \beta(0) \neq -\nabla F(p)$ (see details below). I am not sure what happens when $\dot \beta(0) = -\nabla F(p)$.
Details:
Write $G(t)=F(\beta(t))-F(\alpha(t)) $. Then,$G(0)=0$, and $$G'(0)=\langle \nabla F(p),\dot \beta(0) \rangle-\langle \nabla F(p),\dot \alpha(0) \rangle=\langle \nabla F(p),\dot \beta(0) \rangle+\|\nabla F(p)\|^2 \ge 0,$$
Since by the C-S inequality, we have
$\langle \nabla F(p),\dot \beta(0) \rangle \ge - \|\nabla F(p)\| \cdot \|\dot \beta(0)\|=-\|\nabla F(p)\| \cdot \|\dot \alpha(0)\|=-\|\nabla F(p)\|^2$, with equality if and only if $\dot \beta(0)=-\lambda \nabla F(p)$ for some positive scalar $\lambda$.
So, we showed that if $\dot \beta(0) \neq -\nabla F(p)$, then $G(0)=0,G'(0) >0$, hence $G(t)>G(0)$.
Analysis of the case $\dot \beta(0) = -\nabla F(p)$: Writing $$G'(t)=\langle \nabla F(\beta(t)),\dot \beta(t) \rangle-\langle \nabla F(\alpha(t)),\dot \alpha(t) \rangle$$
we get $$G''(t)= d^2F_{\beta(t)}(\dot \beta(t),\dot \beta(t))+\langle \nabla F(\beta(t)),\ddot \beta(t) \rangle -d^2F_{\alpha(t)}(\dot \alpha(t),\dot \alpha(t))-\langle \nabla F(\alpha(t)),\ddot \alpha(t) \rangle,$$
so $$ G''(0)= d^2F_{p}(-\nabla F(p),-\nabla F(p))+\langle \nabla F(p),\ddot \beta(0) \rangle -d^2F_{p}(-\nabla F(p),-\nabla F(p))-\langle \nabla F(p),\ddot \alpha(0) \rangle=\langle \nabla F(p),\ddot \beta(0) -\ddot \alpha(0) \rangle. \tag{1}$$
Now, we use our assumption that $\langle \dot \beta(t),\dot \beta(t) \rangle=\langle \dot \alpha(t),\dot \alpha(t) \rangle$. Differentiating this, we obtain
$$ \langle \dot \beta(0),\ddot \beta(0) \rangle=\langle \dot \alpha(0),\ddot \alpha(0) \rangle \tag{2},$$
which really means $$ \langle \nabla F(p),\ddot \beta(0) \rangle=\langle \nabla F(p),\ddot \alpha(0) \rangle. \tag{3}$$
Combining $(1)$ and $(3)$ implies that $G''(0)=0$, so this does not seem to help us.
Do we need to proceed to third derivatives? It seems interesting to see if using $\|\dot \beta \|=\|\dot \alpha\|$ we can express neatly $G'''(0)$.
Edit:
As commented by Anthony Carapetis, this "differential analysis" approach is doomed to fail: Indeed, if we want to show $G(t)\ge 0$ by examining derivatives of $G$ at zero, we will have to show that the first non-zero derivative is strictly positive. However, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ may have arbitrarily many derivatives agreeing at zero. (they can even agree on the derivatives of all orders).