Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

LongCat 2.0 vs o3 Mini

LongCat 2.0 leads o3 Mini on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 19.1 to 12.5, and LongCat 2.0 costs 3.7x less per output token ($1.20 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 5 benchmarks have a result for both.

LongCat 2.0Meituan
Coding
No data
Overall
19.1
Output $/M
$1.20
4
o3 MiniOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
12.5
Output $/M
$4.40
1
vs boards won of 5 shared

LongCat 2.0 or o3 Mini: which to pick

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

Pick LongCat 2.0 for output tokens 3.7x cheaper ($1.20 vs $4.40 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 200K tokens).

Shared results
5
LongCat 2.0 only
3
o3 Mini only
65
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, o3 Mini not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 22.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): LongCat 2.0 65.0% against o3 Mini 43.0%, 22.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
LongCat 2.0 $1.20 against o3 Mini $4.40 per million output tokens, 3.7x apart.
Context window
LongCat 2.0 takes 1.05M tokens, o3 Mini 200K.

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 2.0Barso3 MiniTies
Coding01
Intelligence10
Reasoning20
General10
All shared boards41
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and o3 Mini
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0o3 MiniLeader
Aider polyglotNot measured60.4%Only o3 Mini measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured42.4%Only o3 Mini measured
SWE-bench LiteNot measured32.3%Only o3 Mini measured
AA Coding Index45.3Not measuredOnly LongCat 2.0 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured71.5%Only o3 Mini measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured73.4%Only o3 Mini measured
SciCode36.3%42.8%o3 Mini
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured6.8%Only o3 Mini measured
GSO-BenchNot measured1.3%Only o3 Mini measured
WeirdMLNot measured43.7%Only o3 Mini measured
CybenchNot measured22.5%Only o3 Mini measured
ALE-Bench793.5Not measuredOnly LongCat 2.0 measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1378Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1364Only o3 Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and o3 Mini
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0o3 MiniLeader
AA Intelligence Index19.112.5LongCat 2.0
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured140.2Only o3 Mini measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and o3 Mini
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0o3 MiniLeader
AA Agentic Index14.0Not measuredOnly LongCat 2.0 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured31.3%Only o3 Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and o3 Mini
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0o3 MiniLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured75.5%Only o3 Mini measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.0%77.3%LongCat 2.0
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)33.7%12.0%LongCat 2.0
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured77.0%Only o3 Mini measured
ARC-AGINot measured34.5%Only o3 Mini measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured3.0%Only o3 Mini measured
SimpleBenchNot measured22.8%Only o3 Mini measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured15.0%Only o3 Mini measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured7.0%Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1365Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1364Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1375Only o3 Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and o3 Mini
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0o3 MiniLeader
AIMENot measured86.5%Only o3 Mini measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured91.8%Only o3 Mini measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured91.3%Only o3 Mini measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured76.9%Only o3 Mini measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured18.6%Only o3 Mini measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured0.0%Only o3 Mini measured
MATH level 5Not measured96.5%Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1396Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1399Only o3 Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and o3 Mini
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0o3 MiniLeader
MMLU ProNot measured78.7%Only o3 Mini measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured71.5%Only o3 Mini measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured45.3%Only o3 Mini measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured69.4%Only o3 Mini measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured94.8%Only o3 Mini measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured80.2%Only o3 Mini measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured15.3%Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1339Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1330Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1328Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1313Only o3 Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 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 o3 Mini
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0o3 MiniLeader
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 o3 Mini
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0o3 MiniLeader
IFBenchNot measured67.1%Only o3 Mini measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)65.0%43.0%LongCat 2.0
DTBenchNot measured68.8%Only o3 Mini measured
LMCANot measured19.0%Only o3 Mini measured
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured50.0%Only o3 Mini measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured61.7%Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena TextNot measured1337Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1337Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1286Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1351Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1319Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1379Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1303Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1286Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1313Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1334Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1321Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1304Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1294Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1320Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1343Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1313Only o3 Mini measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1283Only o3 Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 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 o3 Mini
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0o3 MiniLeader
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
o3 Mini$0.0033Fits in one request

LongCat 2.0 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

LongCat 2.0$0.019Fits in one request
o3 Mini$0.068Fits in one request

LongCat 2.0 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

LongCat 2.0$0.072Fits in one request
o3 Mini$0.264Exceeds the context window

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.

Specifications of LongCat 2.0 and o3 Mini
SpecificationMeituan LongCat 2.0OpenAI o3 Mini
MakerMeituanOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedJuly 20, 2026January 31, 2025
Context window1.05M200K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$1.10
Output $/Mtok$1.20$4.40
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is LongCat 2.0 better than o3 Mini for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick LongCat 2.0 for output tokens 3.7x cheaper ($1.20 vs $4.40 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 200K tokens).

Which is cheaper, LongCat 2.0 or o3 Mini?

LongCat 2.0 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; o3 Mini costs $1.10 and $4.40. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, LongCat 2.0 or o3 Mini?

LongCat 2.0, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the LongCat 2.0 vs o3 Mini comparison based on?

5 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. LongCat 2.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and o3 Mini's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next