LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen3.8 27B (Low)
Which is better for the money: LongCat 2.0 by LongCat or Qwen3.8 27B (Low) 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 27B (Low) scores 7.1 points higher (26.2 vs 19.1) but costs 1.9× as much to run the benchmark ($1060 vs $545; both premium class). Pick Qwen3.8 27B (Low) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise LongCat 2.0.
| Metric | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.8 27B (Low) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 19.1 | 26.2 | +37.2% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 37.2% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $544.74 | $1,060.08 | +94.6% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 94.6% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 37.44s | 55.17s | +47.4% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 47.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.75 / $2.95 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8 27B (Low) vs LongCat 2.0: 37.2% more intelligence, 94.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 47.4% 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 27B (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
LongCat 2.0Qwen3.8 27B (Low)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/qwen3-8-27b-low · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/longcat-2-0/qwen3-8-27b-low?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill