Celeris-1 vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or LongCat 2.0 by LongCat? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-09-09.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
LongCat 2.0 scores 13.4 points higher (19.7 vs 6.3) but costs 9.1× as much to run the benchmark ($545 vs $60.0; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick LongCat 2.0 when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 19.7 | +212.7% LongCat 2.0 is 3.1× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $544.74 | +808.1% LongCat 2.0 is 9.1× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.97s | 54.47s | +5515.5% LongCat 2.0 is 5515.5% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $0.75 / $2.95 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
LongCat 2.0 vs Celeris-1: 212.7% more intelligence, 808.1% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 5515.5% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Celeris-1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.5 scores 22.30 for $42.6.
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GLM-5.3-Flash scores 41.90 for $280.
Celeris-1LongCat 2.0Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill