GLM-5.3 (Max) vs LongCat 2.0

Which is better for the money: GLM-5.3 (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

Z AIGLM-5.3 (Max)Off the frontier

Intelligence: 44.80
Total cost: $2503

LongCatLongCat 2.0Off the frontier

Intelligence: 19.10
Total cost: $545

Verdict

Depends on your budget

GLM-5.3 (Max) scores 25.7 points higher (44.8 vs 19.1) but costs 4.6× as much to run the benchmark ($2503 vs $545; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GLM-5.3 (Max) when you need intelligence above 19.1, and LongCat 2.0 when 19.1 is enough.

Metric	GLM-5.3 (Max)	LongCat 2.0	Difference
Intelligence (higher is better)	44.8	19.1	−57.4% LongCat 2.0 is 57.4% less intelligent
Total AA cost (lower is better)	$2,503.48	$544.74	−78.2% LongCat 2.0 is 78.2% cheaper
End-to-end time (lower is better)	31.62s	35.51s	+12.3% LongCat 2.0 is 12.3% slower
Price per 1M tokens (in / out)	$1.40 / $4.40	$0.75 / $2.95
Input modalities	Text	Text

LongCat 2.0 vs GLM-5.3 (Max): 57.4% less intelligence, 78.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 12.3% slower end-to-end.

Open this matchup in the interactive picker GLM-5.3 (Max): what beats it LongCat 2.0: what beats it

Today's Pareto frontier

Against the frontier

GLM-5.3 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.

GLM-5.3 (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-5-3/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-3/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill