Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GPT-4.1
56
LongCat-2.0
80
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Coding
+4.9 difference
GPT-4.1
LongCat-2.0
$2 / $8
$0.75 / $2.95
108 t/s
N/A
1.02s
N/A
1M
1M
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
LongCat-2.0 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 56. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
LongCat-2.0's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 59.5 against 54.6.
GPT-4.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $8.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.75 input / $2.95 output per 1M tokens for LongCat-2.0. That is roughly 2.7x on output cost alone. LongCat-2.0 is the reasoning model in the pair, while GPT-4.1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
LongCat-2.0 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 56.
LongCat-2.0 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 59.5 versus 54.6. GPT-4.1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.