Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GPT-5.5
88
LongCat-2.0
80
Verified leaderboard positions: GPT-5.5 #7 · LongCat-2.0 unranked
Pick GPT-5.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LongCat-2.0 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+10.7 difference
Coding
+0.9 difference
GPT-5.5
LongCat-2.0
$5 / $30
$0.75 / $2.95
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
1M
Pick GPT-5.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LongCat-2.0 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
GPT-5.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 88 to 80. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 81.5 against 70.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 82% to 70.8%. LongCat-2.0 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.75 input / $2.95 output per 1M tokens for LongCat-2.0. That is roughly 10.2x on output cost alone.
GPT-5.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 88 to 80. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 82% and 70.8%.
LongCat-2.0 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 59.5 versus 58.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-5.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 70.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.