Llama 4 Maverick vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: Llama 4 Maverick by Meta 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 9.8 points higher (19.1 vs 9.3) but costs 12× as much to run the benchmark ($545 vs $44.0; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick LongCat 2.0 when you need intelligence above 9.3, and Llama 4 Maverick when 9.3 is enough.
| Metric | Llama 4 Maverick | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 9.3 | 19.1 | +105.4% LongCat 2.0 is 2.1× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $43.98 | $544.74 | +1138.6% LongCat 2.0 is 12× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 10.94s | 35.51s | +224.6% LongCat 2.0 is 224.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.25 / $0.92 | $0.75 / $2.95 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
LongCat 2.0 vs Llama 4 Maverick: 105.4% more intelligence, 1138.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 224.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Llama 4 Maverick is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Medium) scores 29.90 for $31.2.
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
Llama 4 MaverickLongCat 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/llama-4-maverick/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/llama-4-maverick/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill