Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
LongCat-2.0
80
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
78
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Agentic
+5.4 difference
Coding
+5.4 difference
LongCat-2.0
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
$0.75 / $2.95
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
256K
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
LongCat-2.0 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 80 versus 78. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
LongCat-2.0's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 59.5 against 54.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 70.8% to 65.4%.
LongCat-2.0 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
LongCat-2.0 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 78. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 70.8% and 65.4%.
LongCat-2.0 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 59.5 versus 54.1. 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 65.4. 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.