LongCat 2.0 vs Muse Glimmer (High)
Which is better for the money: LongCat 2.0 by LongCat or Muse Glimmer (High) by Meta? 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 1.6 points higher (19.1 vs 17.5) but costs 3.7× as much to run the benchmark ($545 vs $146; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick LongCat 2.0 when you need intelligence above 17.5, and Muse Glimmer (High) when 17.5 is enough.
| Metric | LongCat 2.0 | Muse Glimmer (High) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 19.1 | 17.5 | −8.4% Muse Glimmer (High) is 8.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $544.74 | $145.77 | −73.2% Muse Glimmer (High) is 73.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 35.69s | 24.78s | −30.6% Muse Glimmer (High) is 30.6% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.75 / $2.95 | $0.30 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
Muse Glimmer (High) vs LongCat 2.0: 8.4% less intelligence, 73.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 30.6% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
- Muse Glimmer (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Max) scores 38.10 for $122.
LongCat 2.0Muse Glimmer (High)Today'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/longcat-2-0/muse-glimmer · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/longcat-2-0/muse-glimmer?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill