GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) by Z AI 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
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) scores 7.0 points higher (26.1 vs 19.1) but costs 2.7× as much to run the benchmark ($1487 vs $545; both premium class). Pick GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise LongCat 2.0.
| Metric | GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 26.1 | 19.1 | −26.8% LongCat 2.0 is 26.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,486.78 | $544.74 | −63.4% LongCat 2.0 is 63.4% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 60.76s | 35.51s | −41.6% LongCat 2.0 is 41.6% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.28 / $4.07 | $0.75 / $2.95 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
LongCat 2.0 vs GLM-5.1 (Reasoning): 26.8% less intelligence, 63.4% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 41.6% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) 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.
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)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/glm-5-1/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-1/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill