Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, 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 (Max, Default Fallback) scores 38.5 points higher (57.6 vs 19.1) but costs 16× as much to run the benchmark ($8708 vs $545; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 19.1, and LongCat 2.0 when 19.1 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 57.6 | 19.1 | −66.8% LongCat 2.0 is 66.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $8,708.20 | $544.74 | −93.7% LongCat 2.0 is 93.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 609.14s | 35.51s | −94.2% LongCat 2.0 is 94.2% faster |
| 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 (Max, Default Fallback): 66.8% less intelligence, 93.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 94.2% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- 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 (Max, 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/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill