Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
LongCat-2.0
80
Qwen3.7 Max
90
Verified leaderboard positions: LongCat-2.0 unranked · Qwen3.7 Max #3
Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LongCat-2.0 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority.
Agentic
+1.1 difference
Coding
+14.1 difference
LongCat-2.0
Qwen3.7 Max
$0.75 / $2.95
$null / $null
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
1M
Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LongCat-2.0 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority.
Qwen3.7 Max is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 90 to 80. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.7 Max's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 73.6 against 59.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 59.5% to 60.6%. LongCat-2.0 does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 90 to 80. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 59.5% and 60.6%.
Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.6 versus 59.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro 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 69.7. 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.