Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
LongCat-2.0
80
o3-mini
55
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Coding
+10.2 difference
LongCat-2.0
o3-mini
$0.75 / $2.95
$1.1 / $4.4
N/A
160 t/s
N/A
7.12s
1M
200K
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
LongCat-2.0 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 55. 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 49.3.
o3-mini is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.10 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.75 input / $2.95 output per 1M tokens for LongCat-2.0. LongCat-2.0 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for o3-mini.
LongCat-2.0 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 55.
LongCat-2.0 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 59.5 versus 49.3. o3-mini 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.