Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Grok Code Fast 1
39
LongCat-2.0
80
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+11.3 difference
Grok Code Fast 1
LongCat-2.0
$0.2 / $1.5
$0.75 / $2.95
172 t/s
N/A
2.81s
N/A
256K
1M
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
LongCat-2.0 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 39. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
LongCat-2.0 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.75 input / $2.95 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok Code Fast 1. LongCat-2.0 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok Code Fast 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 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Grok Code Fast 1.
LongCat-2.0 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 39.
Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 59.5. LongCat-2.0 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.