Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

LongCat 2.0 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning

LongCat 2.0 leads Nemotron 3.5 Lightning on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 19.1 to 12.9, and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs 8.2x less per output token ($0.147 vs $1.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 8 benchmarks have a result for both.

LongCat 2.0Meituan
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.20
8
Nemotron 3.5 LightningNVIDIA
Coding
22.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.147
0
vs boards won of 8 shared

LongCat 2.0 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: which to pick

Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has a coding score, 22.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; LongCat 2.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick LongCat 2.0 for a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens) and work measured by AA Coding Index or SciCode, where it leads.

Shared results
8
LongCat 2.0 only
0
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning only
12
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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 Lightning 22.6 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Reasoning, 13.4 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run): LongCat 2.0 33.7% against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 10.6%, 23.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
LongCat 2.0 $1.20 against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning $0.147 per million output tokens, 8.2x apart.
Context window
LongCat 2.0 takes 1.05M tokens, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryLongCat 2.0BarsNemotron 3.5 LightningTies
Coding30
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning20
General10
All shared boards80
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
Coding benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
AA Coding Index45.326.8LongCat 2.0
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured52.8%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured3.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured10.9%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured29.5%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
SciCode36.3%32.1%LongCat 2.0
ALE-Bench793.5769.2LongCat 2.0
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
AA Intelligence Index19.112.9LongCat 2.0
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
AA Agentic Index14.03.5LongCat 2.0
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured18.5%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured2.6%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured2.9%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured17.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.0%74.3%LongCat 2.0
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)33.7%10.6%LongCat 2.0
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
Neither model has a result on 13 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured54.2%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured4.3%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)65.0%60.3%LongCat 2.0
Neither model has a result on the other 44 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 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 Lightning$0.0001Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

LongCat 2.0$0.019Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning$0.0031Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

LongCat 2.0$0.072Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning$0.012Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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 Lightning
SpecificationMeituan LongCat 2.0NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
MakerMeituanNVIDIA
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 20, 2026August 11, 2026
Context window1.05M262K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.0534
Output $/Mtok$1.20$0.147
Coding indexNot benchmarked22.6
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.06
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is LongCat 2.0 better than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for coding?

Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has a coding score, 22.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; LongCat 2.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick LongCat 2.0 for a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens) and work measured by AA Coding Index or SciCode, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, LongCat 2.0 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?

LongCat 2.0 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs $0.0534 and $0.147. Cost per solved task is known for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning only.

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

LongCat 2.0, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the LongCat 2.0 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning comparison based on?

8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. LongCat 2.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next