Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Meituan: LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen: Qwen3.6 27B

LongCat 2.0 (high) leads on average score with 6.6 vs 6.5. LongCat 2.0 (high) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.469 vs $0.779. Qwen3.6 27B (medium) is faster at 106.32s vs 148.73s, with pass rates of 53.0% vs 59.1%.

Recommended modelLongCat 2.0 (high)It has the best score here (6.6), while costing about 1.7x less than Qwen3.6 27B (medium).

Last updated at: 2026-07-21

Metric LongCat 2.0 LongCat 2.0 high Release: 2026-07-20 Qwen3.6 27B Qwen3.6 27B medium Release: 2026-04-20
Score 6.6 6.5
Rank #102 #105
Reliability 9.4 10.0
Consistency 8.2 8.0
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 53.0% 59.1%
Flaky tests 5 6
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 5.202 7.319
Total Cost $0.469 $0.779
Input Price $0.300 / 1M $0.450 / 1M
Output Price $1.200 / 1M $2.700 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 93,357 106,167
Output Tokens 30,466 32,889
Reasoning Tokens 336,325 241,303
Response Time (avg) 148.73s 106.32s
Response Time (max) 941.66s 1085.11s
Response Time (total) 3272.00s 2339.12s

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

#105 Qwen3.6 27B

medium
Cost
$0.009
Time
39.6s
Tokens
3,090 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
Qwen3.6 27B 7.7 10.0 66.7% 0 142.99s 5,051 7,968 43,367

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair