Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Meituan: LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash

The average score is effectively tied at 6.3 vs 6.2. LongCat 2.0 has the lower benchmark cost at $0.044 vs $0.139. LongCat 2.0 is faster at 5.18s vs 84.82s, with pass rates of 36.4% vs 69.7%.

Recommended modelLongCat 2.0It has the best score here (6.3), while costing about 3.2x less than Qwen3.5-Flash (medium).

Last updated at: 2026-07-20

Metric LongCat 2.0 LongCat 2.0 none Release: 2026-07-20 Qwen3.5-Flash Qwen3.5-Flash medium Release: 2026-02-24
Score 6.3 6.2
Rank #111 #114
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 9.3 7.8
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 36.4% 69.7%
Flaky tests 2 6
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 0.627 1.361
Total Cost $0.044 $0.139
Input Price $0.300 / 1M $0.065 / 1M
Output Price $1.200 / 1M $0.260 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 108,743 118,499
Output Tokens 9,372 12,284
Reasoning Tokens 0 490,610
Response Time (avg) 5.18s 84.82s
Response Time (max) 48.38s 515.38s
Response Time (total) 113.95s 1781.22s

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#111 LongCat 2.0

none
Cost
$0.027
Time
411.7s
Tokens
22,283 tok

#114 Qwen3.5-Flash

medium
Cost
$0.002
Time
25.8s
Tokens
4,294 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 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 2.85s 7,446 578 0
Qwen3.5-Flash 3.7 7.2 22.2% 1 58.87s 6,685 302 90,081

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair