#106 Owl Alpha
none
Provider returned error
- Cost
- $0.000
- Time
- 0.2s
- Tokens
- 0 tok
Openrouter
Release: 2026-04-30
Tested on: 2026-05-22 00:42
openrouter/owl-alpha::none
1.6T total (48B active)MoEOpen source
(medium)
(none)
Summary
Owl Alpha scores 5.7 on AI BENCHY and ranks #106. It has 10.0 reliability, a 41.7% pass rate, $0.000 total cost, and 8.84s average response time.
What makes Owl Alpha unique: Its total benchmark cost is unusually low for its score range.
Archived model: this model is no longer updated or tested on new tests.
Identity note
Owl Alpha was the stealth version of Meituan: LongCat 2.0.
Model facts
Researched on 2026-08-12
- Parameters
- 1.6T total (48B active)
- Architecture
- MoE
- Availability
- Open source
- License
- MIT
Owl Alpha was disclosed as LongCat 2.0.
5.7
Consistency
9.2
10.0
$0.000
Total Output Tokens
4,864
Total Input Tokens
0
Input Price
$0.000 / 1M
Output Price
$0.000 / 1M
Flaky tests
2
Flaky tests had mixed outcomes across runs (at least one pass and one fail).
Hamster playing table tennis
Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.
Run history
| Tested on | Score | Reliability | Tests Correct | Total Cost | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-04 14:29 New test added | 5.6 | 10.0 | $0.000 | Compare | |
| 2026-05-22 00:42 Suite changed | 5.7 | 10.0 | $0.000 | Current run | |
| 2026-04-30 17:24 Re-test | 6.0 | 10.0 | $0.000 | Compare | |
| 2026-04-30 15:31 Initial run | 6.0 | 10.0 | $0.000 | Compare |
This run used a different benchmark suite. Keep suite changes in mind when reading historical movement.
Run comparison
| Run | Benchmark coverage | Score | Consistency | Reliability | Tests Correct | Flaky tests | Total Output Tokens | Total Input Tokens | Total Cost | Response Time (avg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-22 00:42 · Suite changed | 60/60 attempts | 5.7 | 9.2 | 10.0 | 7/20 | 2 | 4,864 | 0 | $0.000 | 8.84s |
| 2026-06-04 14:29 · New test added | 63/63 attempts | 5.6 | 9.2 | 10.0 | 7/21 | 1 | 5,913 | 42,283 | $0.000 | 9.88s |
| Difference | — | +0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | +1 | -1049 | -42283 | $0.000 | -1034ms |
Benchmark coverage differs: 60/60 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test) versus 63/63 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test). Totals and repeat-sensitive metrics are not directly comparable.
These two runs used different benchmark suites, so the deltas reflect both model changes and suite changes.
Charts
Choose the first model, then click a second model to open a side-by-side page.
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
| Category | Score | Consistency | Tests Correct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-AI Tricks | 3.4 | 7.9 | |
| Coding | 7.0 | 9.9 | |
| Combined | 3.0 | 10.0 | |
| Data parsing and extraction | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Domain specific | 5.3 | 10.0 | |
| General Intelligence | 4.3 | 10.0 | |
| Instructions following | 6.4 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 5.9 | 7.2 | |
| Tool Calling | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Trivia | 3.0 | 10.0 |