LongCat 2.0 vs Reka Flash 3
LongCat 2.0 leads Reka Flash 3 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 19.1 to 6.4, and Reka Flash 3 costs 6.0x less per output token ($0.20 vs $1.20 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.
LongCat 2.0 or Reka Flash 3: 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 66K tokens).
- Shared results
- 4
- LongCat 2.0 only
- 4
- Reka Flash 3 only
- 8
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 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
LongCat 2.0
LongCat 2.0 leads, 19.1 against 6.4.
Same board, both measured
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 66K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Reka Flash 3
LongCat 2.0 $0.0009, Reka Flash 3 $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- LongCat 2.0 not benchmarked, Reka Flash 3 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 65.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): LongCat 2.0 65.0% against Reka Flash 3 0.0%, 65.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- LongCat 2.0 $1.20 against Reka Flash 3 $0.20 per million output tokens, 6.0x apart.
- Context window
- LongCat 2.0 takes 1.05M tokens, Reka Flash 3 66K.
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 | Reka Flash 3 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| General | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 4 | 0 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 45.3 | Not measured | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 43.5% | Only Reka Flash 3 measured |
| SciCode | 36.3% | Not measured | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Reka Flash 3 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 793.5 | Not measured | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 19.1 | 6.4 | LongCat 2.0 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 14.0 | Not measured | Only LongCat 2.0 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Reka Flash 3 measured |
| BALROG | Not measured | 29.2% | Only Reka Flash 3 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 78.0% | 52.9% | LongCat 2.0 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 33.7% | 4.4% | LongCat 2.0 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | Not measured | 33.7 | Only Reka Flash 3 measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 33.7% | Only Reka Flash 3 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 66.9% | Only Reka Flash 3 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 30.4% | Only Reka Flash 3 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 65.0% | 0.0% | LongCat 2.0 |
| 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
| Benchmark | LongCat 2.0 | Reka Flash 3 | 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
Reka Flash 3 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Reka Flash 3 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Reka Flash 3 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 | Reka Flash 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Meituan | Reka |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | July 20, 2026 | March 12, 2025 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 66K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.30 | $0.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.20 | $0.20 |
| 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 Reka Flash 3 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 66K tokens).
Which is cheaper, LongCat 2.0 or Reka Flash 3?
LongCat 2.0 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Reka Flash 3 costs $0.10 and $0.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, LongCat 2.0 or Reka Flash 3?
LongCat 2.0, with 1.05M tokens against 66K.
How many benchmarks is the LongCat 2.0 vs Reka Flash 3 comparison based on?
4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 23, 2026. LongCat 2.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Reka Flash 3's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.