LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads LongCat 2.0 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 39.9 to 19.1, and LongCat 2.0 costs 5.0x less per output token ($1.20 vs $6.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 7 benchmarks have a result for both.
LongCat 2.0 or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: 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 5.0x cheaper ($1.20 vs $6.00 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 1.05M tokens).
- Shared results
- 7
- LongCat 2.0 only
- 1
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B only
- 2
- 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads, 39.9 against 19.1.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads, 50.1 against 14.0.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
LongCat 2.0
LongCat 2.0 takes 1.05M tokens against 1.05M.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
LongCat 2.0
LongCat 2.0 $0.0009, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $0.0050 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- LongCat 2.0 not benchmarked, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 36.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- AA Agentic Index: LongCat 2.0 14.0 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 50.1, 36.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- LongCat 2.0 $1.20 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $6.00 per million output tokens, 5.0x apart.
- Context window
- LongCat 2.0 takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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.
| Category | LongCat 2.0 | Bars | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 2 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 2 | ||
| General | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 7 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 45.3 | 71.9 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| SciCode | 36.3% | 54.1% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| ALE-Bench | 793.5 | Not measured | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 19.1 | 39.9 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 14.0 | 50.1 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| MCP Atlas | Not measured | 84.5% | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 78.0% | 93.5% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 33.7% | 42.4% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MathArena | Not measured | 31.6% | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 20 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 65.0% | 80.3% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 47 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 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
LongCat 2.0 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
LongCat 2.0 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Meituan LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Meituan | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | July 20, 2026 | August 12, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.30 | $2.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.20 | $6.00 |
| 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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick LongCat 2.0 for output tokens 5.0x cheaper ($1.20 vs $6.00 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 1.05M tokens).
Which is cheaper, LongCat 2.0 or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
LongCat 2.0 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 and $6.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, LongCat 2.0 or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
LongCat 2.0, with 1.05M tokens against 1.05M.
How many benchmarks is the LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B comparison based on?
7 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. LongCat 2.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.