GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct vs LongCat 2.0
LongCat 2.0 costs 1.7x less per output token than GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct ($1.20 vs $2.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $2.00
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $1.20
GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct or LongCat 2.0: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
No benchmark has tested both yet. GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct has results on METR time horizons; LongCat 2.0 on AA Coding Index, SciCode and ALE-Bench. Compare them on price and context instead.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only LongCat 2.0 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 19.1.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only LongCat 2.0 has a AA Agentic Index result, 14.0.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
LongCat 2.0
LongCat 2.0 takes 1.05M tokens against 4K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
LongCat 2.0
GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct $0.0025, LongCat 2.0 $0.0009 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct not benchmarked, LongCat 2.0 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
- Widest single gap
- None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
- Output price
- GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct $2.00 against LongCat 2.0 $1.20 per million output tokens, 1.7x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct takes 4K tokens, LongCat 2.0 1.05M.
Benchmark by benchmark
Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 45.3 | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 36.3% | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 793.5 | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 19.1 | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 14.0 | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| METR time horizons | 21.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 78.0% | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 33.7% | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct | LongCat 2.0 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 65.0% | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 47 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
LongCat 2.0 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
LongCat 2.0 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
LongCat 2.0 costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | OpenAI GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct | Meituan LongCat 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Meituan |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | September 28, 2023 | July 20, 2026 |
| Context window | 4K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.50 | $0.30 |
| Output $/Mtok | $2.00 | $1.20 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct better than LongCat 2.0 for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct or LongCat 2.0?
GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct costs $1.50 per million input tokens and $2.00 per million output tokens; LongCat 2.0 costs $0.30 and $1.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct or LongCat 2.0?
LongCat 2.0, with 1.05M tokens against 4K.
Has any benchmark tested both GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct and LongCat 2.0?
No benchmark has tested both yet. GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct has results on METR time horizons; LongCat 2.0 on AA Coding Index, SciCode and ALE-Bench. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.