Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) by SpaceXAI 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 5.1 points higher (19.1 vs 14.0) but costs 2.2× as much to run the benchmark ($545 vs $250; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick LongCat 2.0 when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning).
| Metric | Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 14.0 | 19.1 | +36.4% LongCat 2.0 is 36.4% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $250.37 | $544.74 | +117.6% LongCat 2.0 is 2.2× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 5.93s | 35.69s | +501.9% LongCat 2.0 is 501.9% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.25 / $2.50 | $0.75 / $2.95 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
LongCat 2.0 vs Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning): 36.4% more intelligence, 117.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 501.9% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
Grok 4.3 (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/grok-4-3-non-reasoning/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-3-non-reasoning/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill