Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Meituan: LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5-27B

LongCat 2.0 (high) leads on average score with 6.6 vs 6.5. Qwen3.5-27B has the lower benchmark cost at $0.090 vs $0.469. Qwen3.5-27B is faster at 4.76s vs 148.73s, with pass rates of 53.0% vs 40.9%.

Recommended modelQwen3.5-27BIts score stays close to the best score here (6.5 vs 6.6), while costing about 5.2x less than LongCat 2.0 (high).

Last updated at: 2026-07-21

Metric LongCat 2.0 LongCat 2.0 high Release: 2026-07-20 Qwen3.5-27B Qwen3.5-27B none Release: 2026-02-24
Score 6.6 6.5
Rank #102 #109
Reliability 9.4 10.0
Consistency 8.2 9.3
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 53.0% 40.9%
Flaky tests 5 2
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 5.202 0.763
Total Cost $0.469 $0.090
Input Price $0.300 / 1M $0.260 / 1M
Output Price $1.200 / 1M $2.600 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 93,357 102,316
Output Tokens 30,466 24,321
Reasoning Tokens 336,325 0
Response Time (avg) 148.73s 4.76s
Response Time (max) 941.66s 69.46s
Response Time (total) 3272.00s 104.71s

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#102 LongCat 2.0

high
Invalid SVG
Cost
$0.000
Time
600.0s
Tokens
0 tok

#109 Qwen3.5-27B

none
Cost
$0.007
Time
42.9s
Tokens
4,273 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
LongCat 2.0 7.6 7.2 77.8% 1 505.33s 6,913 244 192,377
Qwen3.5-27B 5.8 10.0 33.3% 0 1.80s 7,913 415 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair