Claude Sonnet 5 vs LongCat-2.5

Updated November 9, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Claude Sonnet 5

Anthropic

64.27/100

Supported · Public rank #35

90% interval 58.8–69.7

Model B

LongCat-2.5

Meituan

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Shared results: 5
Claude Sonnet 5 only: 27
LongCat-2.5 only: 17
Like-for-like categories: 0 / 8

Supported: Claude Sonnet 5How the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
LongCat-2.5
LongCat-2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
LongCat-2.5
LongCat-2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
LongCat-2.5
LongCat-2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
LongCat-2.5 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
LongCat-2.5 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

57.3Claude Sonnet 5—LongCat-2.5

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

BrowseCompAgentic
Normalized gap 7.2
Claude Sonnet 5:84.7%
LongCat-2.5:91.9%
Claude Sonnet 5 source LongCat-2.5 source
CharXivMultimodal
Normalized gap 1.9
Claude Sonnet 5:88.3%
LongCat-2.5:90.2%
Claude Sonnet 5 source LongCat-2.5 source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 64.3; Supported · #18/132
LongCat-2.5: Not ranked
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 11 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 57.3; Supported · #27/158
LongCat-2.5: Not ranked
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 11 vs 6 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 61.6; Estimated · #28/157
LongCat-2.5: Not ranked
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 61.9; Supported · #33/67
LongCat-2.5: Not ranked
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 4 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 63.2; Supported · #39/179
LongCat-2.5: Not ranked
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 1 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not ranked
LongCat-2.5: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not ranked
LongCat-2.5: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 65.9; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
LongCat-2.5: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Sonnet 5 and LongCat-2.5
Category	Claude Sonnet 5	LongCat-2.5	Basis	Reading
Agentic	64.3Supported · #18/132	Not ranked	Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 11 public rows	Not comparable
Coding	57.3Supported · #27/158	Not ranked	Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 11 vs 6 public rows	Not comparable
Reasoning	61.6Estimated · #28/157	Not ranked	Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	61.9Supported · #33/67	Not ranked	Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 4 public rows	Not comparable
Knowledge	63.2Supported · #39/179	Not ranked	Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 1 public rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	65.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Sonnet 5: $0.007; Fits in one request
LongCat-2.5: $0.0009; Fits in one request

LongCat-2.5 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Sonnet 5: $0.13; Fits in one request
LongCat-2.5: $0.0186; Fits in one request

LongCat-2.5 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Sonnet 5: $0.18; Fits in one request
LongCat-2.5: $0.0192; Fits in one request

LongCat-2.5 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationClaude Sonnet 5LongCat-2.5

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Sonnet 5

Anthropic model overview

LongCat-2.5

LongCat API Platform pricing

API model ID

Claude Sonnet 5

claude-sonnet-5

Anthropic model overview

LongCat-2.5

LongCat API Platform pricing

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Sonnet 5

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

LongCat-2.5

$0.006 per 1M cached input tokens

LongCat API Platform pricing

Documented inputs

Claude Sonnet 5

text, image

Anthropic model overview

LongCat-2.5

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Sonnet 5

text

Anthropic model overview

LongCat-2.5

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Sonnet 5

Generally Available · Claude API

Anthropic model overview

LongCat-2.5

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Sonnet 5

Reasoning

LongCat-2.5

Hybrid

Weight access

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

LongCat-2.5

Open Weight

License

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

LongCat-2.5

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Sonnet 5

2026-06-30

LongCat-2.5

2026-11-02

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal: At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost: Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.18 vs $0.0192.
Context tradeoff: Both models list 1M.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or LongCat-2.5?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5 or LongCat-2.5?

LongCat-2.5 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or LongCat-2.5?

LongCat-2.5 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or LongCat-2.5?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Claude Sonnet 5 and $0.0009 on LongCat-2.5; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.18 and $0.0192. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or LongCat-2.5?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Claude Sonnet 5

API / mo$9,000

Self-host / moNot listed

Break-even—

Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.

LongCat-2.5

API / mo$1,125

Self-host / mo$57,606

Break-even3.4B/day

Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence49 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 4.1
Claude Sonnet 512.10%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Sonnet 514.6%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Sonnet 580.4%
Source
LongCat-2.588.4%
Source
LongCat-2.5 leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 584.7%
Source
LongCat-2.591.9%
Source
LongCat-2.5 leads this result
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 557.4%
Source
LongCat-2.563.1%
Source
LongCat-2.5 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 581.2%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 574.5%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Claude Sonnet 516%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Claude Sonnet 50%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.1
Claude Sonnet 557.0%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.538.50%
Source
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.551.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.538.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.583.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.565.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.563.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
SpreadsheetBench 2
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.534.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.578.3%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 585.2%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 563.2%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 578.3%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 528.1%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Sonnet 580.4%
Source
LongCat-2.588.4%
Source
LongCat-2.5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 542.7%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Claude Sonnet 561.5%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench CII v1
Claude Sonnet 589.2%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 582.4%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 579.6%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Claude Sonnet 534.1%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.525.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.564.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
PaperBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.582.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-Atlas Codebase QnA
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.558.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.560.5%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

ParseBench
Claude Sonnet 561.16%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Sonnet 588.3%
Source
LongCat-2.590.2%
Source
LongCat-2.5 leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 577%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
Vision2Web
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.578.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.596.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.585.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

HLE
Claude Sonnet 557.4%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 543.2%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
HLE-Verified
Claude Sonnet 531.0%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Claude Sonnet 580.1%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 588.9%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 587.5%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
FrontierScience
Claude Sonnet 5—
LongCat-2.577%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Sonnet 565.614%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Sonnet 529.268%
Source
LongCat-2.5—
Not directly comparable

49 public results · 5 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs LongCat-2.5

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 6,100+ subscribers.

Last updated November 9, 2026

Claude Sonnet 5 vs LongCat-2.5

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or LongCat-2.5?

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5 or LongCat-2.5?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or LongCat-2.5?

Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or LongCat-2.5?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or LongCat-2.5?

Self-host vs API cost

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Multimodal

Knowledge

Math

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs LongCat-2.5