gpt-oss-120b (High) vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: gpt-oss-120b (High) 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 7.5 points higher (19.1 vs 11.6) but costs 4.4× as much to run the benchmark ($545 vs $123; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick LongCat 2.0 when you need intelligence above 11.6, and gpt-oss-120b (High) when 11.6 is enough.
| Metric | gpt-oss-120b (High) | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 11.6 | 19.1 | +64.7% LongCat 2.0 is 64.7% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $122.71 | $544.74 | +343.9% LongCat 2.0 is 4.4× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 11.29s | 37.46s | +231.8% LongCat 2.0 is 231.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.15 / $0.60 | $0.75 / $2.95 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
LongCat 2.0 vs gpt-oss-120b (High): 64.7% more intelligence, 343.9% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 231.8% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- gpt-oss-120b (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Max) scores 38.10 for $122.
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
gpt-oss-120b (High)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-oss-120b/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-oss-120b/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill