Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or LongCat 2.0 by LongCat? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) scores 23.2 points higher (42.3 vs 19.1) but costs 1.6× as much to run the benchmark ($860 vs $545; both premium class). Pick Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise LongCat 2.0.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 42.3 | 19.1 | −54.8% LongCat 2.0 is 54.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $860.33 | $544.74 | −36.7% LongCat 2.0 is 36.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 12.48s | 37.06s | +197.0% LongCat 2.0 is 197.0% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $0.75 / $2.95 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
LongCat 2.0 vs Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback): 54.8% less intelligence, 36.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 197.0% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback)LongCat 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/claude-opus-5-5-low/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-low/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill