LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen3.7 Flash costs 9.2x less per output token than LongCat 2.0 ($0.13 vs $1.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.
LongCat 2.0 or Qwen3.7 Flash: 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 1M tokens).
- Shared results
- 1
- LongCat 2.0 only
- 7
- Qwen3.7 Flash only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only LongCat 2.0 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 19.1.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only LongCat 2.0 has a AA Agentic Index result, 14.0.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
LongCat 2.0
LongCat 2.0 takes 1.05M tokens against 1M.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.7 Flash
LongCat 2.0 $0.0009, Qwen3.7 Flash $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- LongCat 2.0 not benchmarked, Qwen3.7 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Coding, 12.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- ALE-Bench: LongCat 2.0 793.5 against Qwen3.7 Flash 420.1, 12.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- LongCat 2.0 $1.20 against Qwen3.7 Flash $0.13 per million output tokens, 9.2x apart.
- Context window
- LongCat 2.0 takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.7 Flash 1M.
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.
| Category | LongCat 2.0 | Bars | Qwen3.7 Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 1 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 45.3 | Not measured | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| SciCode | 36.3% | Not measured | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 793.5 | 420.1 | LongCat 2.0 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 19.1 | Not measured | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 144.1 | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 14.0 | Not measured | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 78.0% | Not measured | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 33.7% | Not measured | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 82.3% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 15.0% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 86.7% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 19.3% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 18 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 65.0% | Not measured | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 45 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Qwen3.7 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Flash 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.
| Specification | Meituan LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Meituan | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 20, 2026 | July 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.30 | $0.03 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.20 | $0.13 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is LongCat 2.0 better than Qwen3.7 Flash 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 1M tokens).
Which is cheaper, LongCat 2.0 or Qwen3.7 Flash?
LongCat 2.0 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Flash costs $0.03 and $0.13. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, LongCat 2.0 or Qwen3.7 Flash?
LongCat 2.0, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks is the LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen3.7 Flash comparison based on?
1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. LongCat 2.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.7 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.