GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) by OpenAI 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
LongCat 2.0 scores 0.6 points higher (19.1 vs 18.5) but costs 28× as much to run the benchmark ($545 vs $19.2; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick LongCat 2.0 when you need intelligence above 18.5, and GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) when 18.5 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 18.5 | 19.1 | +3.2% LongCat 2.0 is 3.2% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $19.16 | $544.74 | +2743.1% LongCat 2.0 is 28× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 5.09s | 37.46s | +636.0% LongCat 2.0 is 636.0% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.10 / $0.50 | $0.75 / $2.95 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
LongCat 2.0 vs GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning): 3.2% more intelligence, 2743.1% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 636.0% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
GPT-6 Luna (Non-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/gpt-6-luna-non-reasoning/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-luna-non-reasoning/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill