Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

LongCat 2.0 vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL leads LongCat 2.0 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 26.5 to 19.1, and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL costs 2.4x less per output token ($0.50 vs $1.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.

LongCat 2.0Meituan
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.20
1
Nemotron 3.5 Super VLNVIDIA
Coding
No data
Overall
35.6
Output $/M
$0.50
3
vs boards won of 4 shared

LongCat 2.0 or Nemotron 3.5 Super VL: 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 1.05M tokens) and work measured by SciCode or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
4
LongCat 2.0 only
4
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL only
12
Like-for-like categories
4 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 Super VL not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 11.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
SciCode: LongCat 2.0 36.3% against Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 47.8%, 11.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
LongCat 2.0 $1.20 against Nemotron 3.5 Super VL $0.50 per million output tokens, 2.4x apart.
Context window
LongCat 2.0 takes 1.05M tokens, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 1.05M.

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 Super VLTies
Coding01
Intelligence01
Reasoning10
General01
All shared boards13
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
LiveBench codingNot measured65.5%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
AA Coding Index45.3Not measuredOnly LongCat 2.0 measured
SciCode36.3%47.8%Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
ALE-Bench793.5Not measuredOnly LongCat 2.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
AA Intelligence Index19.126.5Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
AA Agentic Index14.0Not measuredOnly LongCat 2.0 measured
LiveBench researchNot measured70.9%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
LiveBench browserNot measured4.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured15.8%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Reasoning benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
LiveBench reasoningNot measured78.8%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.0%Not measuredOnly LongCat 2.0 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)33.7%30.7%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 Super VL
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
Neither model has a result on 14 boards here
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
Neither model has a result on 20 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1173Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1149Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1110Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1128Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1154Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
LiveBench designNot measured60.7%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
General benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
LiveBench data analysisNot measured64.6%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)65.0%69.0%Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
Neither model has a result on the other 46 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 Super VL
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
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 Super VL$0.0004Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

LongCat 2.0$0.019Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL$0.0090Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

LongCat 2.0$0.072Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL$0.035Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 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 Super VL
SpecificationMeituan LongCat 2.0NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
MakerMeituanNVIDIA
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 20, 2026October 15, 2026
Context window1.05M1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.15
Output $/Mtok$1.20$0.50
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it01
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is LongCat 2.0 better than Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 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 1.05M tokens) and work measured by SciCode or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, LongCat 2.0 or Nemotron 3.5 Super VL?

LongCat 2.0 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Nemotron 3.5 Super VL costs $0.15 and $0.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

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

LongCat 2.0, with 1.05M tokens against 1.05M.

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

4 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 Super VL's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next