LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning)
Which is better for the money: LongCat 2.0 by LongCat or Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) 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 (Non-reasoning) scores 1.1 points higher (20.2 vs 19.1) but costs 3.7× as much to run the benchmark ($2022 vs $545; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) when you need intelligence above 19.1, and LongCat 2.0 when 19.1 is enough.
| Metric | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 19.1 | 20.2 | +5.8% Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reas… is 5.8% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $544.74 | $2,022.49 | +271.3% Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reas… is 3.7× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 37.40s | 13.95s | −62.7% Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reas… is 62.7% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.75 / $2.95 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) vs LongCat 2.0: 5.8% more intelligence, 271.3% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 62.7% 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.
- Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
LongCat 2.0Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning)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-non-reasoning · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/longcat-2-0/qwen3-8-27b-non-reasoning?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill