Claude Opus 5 (Low) vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5 (Low) by Anthropic or LongCat 2.0 by LongCat? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5 (Low) scores 20.3 points higher (39.4 vs 19.1) but costs 2.9× as much to run the benchmark ($1561 vs $545; both premium class). Pick Claude Opus 5 (Low) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise LongCat 2.0.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 (Low) | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.4 | 19.1 | −51.5% LongCat 2.0 is 51.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,560.91 | $544.74 | −65.1% LongCat 2.0 is 65.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 11.79s | 35.54s | +201.4% LongCat 2.0 is 201.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $25.0 | $0.75 / $2.95 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
LongCat 2.0 vs Claude Opus 5 (Low): 51.5% less intelligence, 65.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 201.4% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- 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 (Low)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-low/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-low/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill