Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

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

The average score is effectively tied at 7.4 vs 7.4. LongCat 2.0 (medium) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.478 vs $1.627. Qwen3.5-27B (medium) is faster at 111.94s vs 136.64s, with pass rates of 60.6% vs 72.7%.

Recommended modelLongCat 2.0 (medium)It has the best score here (7.4), while costing about 3.4x less than Qwen3.5-27B (medium).

Last updated at: 2026-07-20

Metric LongCat 2.0 LongCat 2.0 medium Release: 2026-07-20 Qwen3.5-27B Qwen3.5-27B medium Release: 2026-02-24
Score 7.4 7.4
Rank #60 #58
Reliability 9.8 10.0
Consistency 8.9 8.2
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 60.6% 72.7%
Flaky tests 3 5
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 3.978 8.324
Total Cost $0.478 $1.627
Input Price $0.300 / 1M $0.260 / 1M
Output Price $1.200 / 1M $2.600 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 97,315 111,635
Output Tokens 44,384 15,999
Reasoning Tokens 329,012 598,430
Response Time (avg) 136.64s 111.94s
Response Time (max) 939.52s 1026.43s
Response Time (total) 3006.01s 2462.67s

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#60 LongCat 2.0

medium
Cost
$0.016
Time
285.1s
Tokens
13,057 tok

#58 Qwen3.5-27B

medium
Cost
$0.008
Time
62.0s
Tokens
3,099 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 10.0 10.0 100.0% 0 455.00s 7,419 533 214,143
Qwen3.5-27B 6.2 7.1 55.6% 1 160.69s 7,895 6,381 89,388

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair