Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

LongCat 2.0 vs Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety costs 6.0x less per output token than LongCat 2.0 ($0.20 vs $1.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Replace LongCat 2.0 Replace Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
LongCat 2.0Meituan
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.20
Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyNVIDIA
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.20
vs $1.20 vs $0.20 per 1M output tokens. Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety is 6.0x cheaper.

LongCat 2.0 or Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick LongCat 2.0 for a larger context window (1.05M against 131K tokens).

Model ALongCat 2.0MeituanNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BNemotron 3.5 Content SafetyNVIDIANot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task

No benchmark has tested both yet. LongCat 2.0 has results on AA Coding Index, SciCode and ALE-Bench; Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety has none yet. 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.

At a glance

Coding index
LongCat 2.0 not benchmarked, Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety 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
LongCat 2.0 $1.20 against Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety $0.20 per million output tokens, 6.0x apart.
Context window
LongCat 2.0 takes 1.05M tokens, Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety 131K.

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
Coding benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyLeader
AA Coding Index45.3Not measuredOnly LongCat 2.0 measured
SciCode36.3%Not measuredOnly LongCat 2.0 measured
ALE-Bench793.5Not measuredOnly 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
Intelligence benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyLeader
AA Intelligence Index19.1Not measuredOnly 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 index1 board measured
Agentic work benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyLeader
AA Agentic Index14.0Not measuredOnly LongCat 2.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.0%Not measuredOnly LongCat 2.0 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)33.7%Not measuredOnly 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
General benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyLeader
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)65.0%Not measuredOnly 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$0.0009Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety$0.0003Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

LongCat 2.0$0.019Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety$0.011Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

LongCat 2.0$0.072Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety$0.042Exceeds the context window

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety 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.

Specifications of LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
SpecificationMeituan LongCat 2.0NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
MakerMeituanNVIDIA
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 20, 2026June 4, 2026
Context window1.05M131K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.20
Output $/Mtok$1.20$0.20
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is LongCat 2.0 better than Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick LongCat 2.0 for a larger context window (1.05M against 131K tokens).

Which is cheaper, LongCat 2.0 or Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety?

LongCat 2.0 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety costs $0.20 and $0.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, LongCat 2.0 or Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety?

LongCat 2.0, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

Has any benchmark tested both LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety?

No benchmark has tested both yet. LongCat 2.0 has results on AA Coding Index, SciCode and ALE-Bench; Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.

Compare next