Navigasi
AI BENCHY
AD
Track all your projects in one dashboard. Get 📊stats, 🔥heatmaps and 👀recordings in one self-hosted dashboard.
uxwizz.com

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

Qwen3.5-27B unggul dalam skor rata-rata dengan 6.5 vs 6.3. LongCat 2.0 memiliki biaya benchmark lebih rendah di $0.044 vs $0.090. Qwen3.5-27B lebih cepat di 4.76s vs 5.18s, dengan tingkat keberhasilan 36.4% vs 40.9%.

Model yang direkomendasikanQwen3.5-27BIt has the strongest score in this comparison (6.5) and the best overall balance of cost and response time across all 2 models.

Benchmark dihasilkan dari suite pengujian AI BENCHY pada: 2026-07-20

Metrik LongCat 2.0 LongCat 2.0 none Rilis: 2026-07-20 Qwen3.5-27B Qwen3.5-27B none Rilis: 2026-02-24
Skor 6.3 6.5
Peringkat #111 #103
Keandalan 10.0 10.0
Konsistensi 9.3 9.3
Tes benar
Tingkat lulus per percobaan 36.4% 40.9%
Tes tidak stabil 2 2
Total Run 66 66
Biaya per hasil 0.627 0.763
Total Biaya $0.044 $0.090
Harga input $0.300 / 1M $0.260 / 1M
Harga output $1.200 / 1M $2.600 / 1M
Total token input 108,743 102,316
Token output 9,372 24,321
Token penalaran 0 0
Waktu respons (rata-rata) 5.18s 4.76s
Waktu respons (maks) 48.38s 69.46s
Waktu respons (total) 113.95s 104.71s

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#111 LongCat 2.0

none
Biaya
$0.027
Waktu
411.7s
Token
22,283 tok

#103 Qwen3.5-27B

none
Biaya
$0.007
Waktu
42.9s
Token
4,273 tok

Model teratas berdasarkan skor

Skor vs Total Biaya

Waktu respons (rata-rata)

Skor vs Waktu respons (rata-rata)

Total token output

Skor vs Total token output

Rincian Kategori

Pemrograman Skor Konsistensi Tingkat lulus per percobaan Tes tidak stabil Tes benar Waktu respons (rata-rata) Token input Token output Token penalaran
LongCat 2.0 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 2.85s 7,446 578 0
Qwen3.5-27B 5.8 10.0 33.3% 0 1.80s 7,913 415 0

Perbandingan Cepat

Ganti Pasangan Perbandingan