Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
LongCat-2.0
80
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
62
Verified leaderboard positions: LongCat-2.0 unranked · Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #29
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Agentic
+19.3 difference
Coding
+7.4 difference
LongCat-2.0
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
$0.75 / $2.95
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
262K
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
LongCat-2.0 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 62. 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 51.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 70.8% to 51.5%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
LongCat-2.0 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
LongCat-2.0 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 70.8% and 51.5%.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 66.9 versus 59.5. 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 51.5. 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.