Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Laguna XS.2
63
LongCat-2.0
80
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna XS.2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+40.7 difference
Coding
+6.2 difference
Laguna XS.2
LongCat-2.0
$0.1 / $0.2
$0.75 / $2.95
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
1M
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna XS.2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
LongCat-2.0 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 63. 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 agentic, where it averages 70.8 against 30.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 30.1% to 70.8%.
LongCat-2.0 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.75 input / $2.95 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.20 output per 1M tokens for Laguna XS.2. That is roughly 14.8x on output cost alone. LongCat-2.0 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Laguna XS.2.
LongCat-2.0 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 63. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 30.1% and 70.8%.
LongCat-2.0 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 59.5 versus 53.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
LongCat-2.0 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 30.1. 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.