GLM-5.2 (Max) vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.2 (Max) 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-5.2 (Max) scores 14.6 points higher (33.7 vs 19.1) but costs 3.9× as much to run the benchmark ($2097 vs $545; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GLM-5.2 (Max) when you need intelligence above 19.1, and LongCat 2.0 when 19.1 is enough.
| Metric | GLM-5.2 (Max) | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 33.7 | 19.1 | −43.3% LongCat 2.0 is 43.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,097.29 | $544.74 | −74.0% LongCat 2.0 is 74.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 29.25s | 35.51s | +21.4% LongCat 2.0 is 21.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.75 / $2.95 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
LongCat 2.0 vs GLM-5.2 (Max): 43.3% less intelligence, 74.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 21.4% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.2 (Max) 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-5.2 (Max)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-5-2/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-2/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill