LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: LongCat 2.0 by LongCat or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 20.8 points higher (39.9 vs 19.1) but costs 4.8× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $545; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 19.1, and LongCat 2.0 when 19.1 is enough.
| Metric | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 19.1 | 39.9 | +108.9% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 2.1× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $544.74 | $2,632.05 | +383.2% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 4.8× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 37.40s | 61.67s | +64.9% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 64.9% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.75 / $2.95 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs LongCat 2.0: 108.9% more intelligence, 383.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 64.9% slower 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.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
LongCat 2.0Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BToday'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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/longcat-2-0/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill