LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen3.7 Max
Which is better for the money: LongCat 2.0 by LongCat or Qwen3.7 Max by Alibaba? 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
Qwen3.7 Max scores 10.4 points higher (29.5 vs 19.1) but costs 4.2× as much to run the benchmark ($2277 vs $545; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.7 Max when you need intelligence above 19.1, and LongCat 2.0 when 19.1 is enough.
| Metric | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.7 Max | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 19.1 | 29.5 | +54.5% Qwen3.7 Max is 54.5% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $544.74 | $2,277.12 | +318.0% Qwen3.7 Max is 4.2× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 35.69s | 16.67s | −53.3% Qwen3.7 Max is 53.3% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.75 / $2.95 | $2.50 / $7.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3.7 Max vs LongCat 2.0: 54.5% more intelligence, 318.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 53.3% 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.
- Qwen3.7 Max is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
LongCat 2.0Qwen3.7 MaxToday'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/qwen3-7-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/longcat-2-0/qwen3-7-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill