Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B leads LongCat 2.0 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 21.4 to 19.1, and LongCat 2.0 costs 2.3x less per output token ($1.20 vs $2.70 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; 7 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace LongCat 2.0 Replace Qwen3.6 27B
LongCat 2.0Meituan
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.20
1
Qwen3.6 27BQwen
Coding
36.8
Overall
45.3
Output $/M
$2.70
6
vs boards won of 7 shared

LongCat 2.0 or Qwen3.6 27B: which to pick

Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; LongCat 2.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick LongCat 2.0 for output tokens 2.3x cheaper ($1.20 vs $2.70 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens).

Model ALongCat 2.0MeituanNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen3.6 27BQwen36.8/1002 independent benchmarks$1.30 per solved task
Shared results
7
LongCat 2.0 only
1
Qwen3.6 27B only
18
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, Qwen3.6 27B 36.8 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
General, 12.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): LongCat 2.0 65.0% against Qwen3.6 27B 77.3%, 12.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
LongCat 2.0 $1.20 against Qwen3.6 27B $2.70 per million output tokens, 2.3x apart.
Context window
LongCat 2.0 takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.6 27B 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 2.0BarsQwen3.6 27BTies
Coding02
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning11
General01
All shared boards16
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Coding Index45.353.7Qwen3.6 27B
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured70.0%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured11.9%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
SciCode36.3%42.8%Qwen3.6 27B
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured34.8%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
ALE-Bench793.5Not measuredOnly LongCat 2.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Intelligence Index19.121.4Qwen3.6 27B
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured146.2Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Agentic Index14.018.5Qwen3.6 27B
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured94.2%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Reasoning benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.0%84.2%Qwen3.6 27B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)33.7%23.1%LongCat 2.0
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured85.9%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured7.0%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured91.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured35.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured53.2%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured62.3%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured71.3%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured68.3%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 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 Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
General benchmarks for LongCat 2.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured45.6%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
IFBenchNot measured67.6%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)65.0%77.3%Qwen3.6 27B
DTBenchNot measured78.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LMCANot measured34.5%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
EQ-Bench 4Not measured1026Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 42 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 Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLongCat 2.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
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
Qwen3.6 27B$0.0018Fits in one request

LongCat 2.0 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

LongCat 2.0$0.019Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 27B$0.031Fits in one request

LongCat 2.0 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

LongCat 2.0$0.072Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 27B$0.117Fits in one request

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 Qwen3.6 27B
SpecificationMeituan LongCat 2.0Qwen3.6 27B
MakerMeituanQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 20, 2026April 27, 2026
Context window1.05M262K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.45
Output $/Mtok$1.20$2.70
Coding indexNot benchmarked36.8
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.30
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is LongCat 2.0 better than Qwen3.6 27B for coding?

Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; LongCat 2.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick LongCat 2.0 for output tokens 2.3x cheaper ($1.20 vs $2.70 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens).

Which is cheaper, LongCat 2.0 or Qwen3.6 27B?

LongCat 2.0 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.45 and $2.70. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.6 27B only.

Which has the bigger context window, LongCat 2.0 or Qwen3.6 27B?

LongCat 2.0, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen3.6 27B comparison based on?

7 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 23, 2026. LongCat 2.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 27B's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next