Model Comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601Which is better in 2026?

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is 19.0x cheaper per token.

Verdict: Claude Opus 4.6 vs LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 — which is better?

Claude Opus 4.6 (by Anthropic) and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 (by Meituan) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

Claude Opus 4.6 outperforms in 6 benchmarks (AIME 2025, BrowseComp, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Verified, Tau2 Retail), while LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is better at 0 benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

On price, LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is roughly 19.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Opus 4.6 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Choose Claude Opus 4.6 if…

  • you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 6 of 7 shared benchmarks
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Feb 2026

Choose LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 if…

  • cost matters — it's about 19.0x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

7 benchmarks

Claude Opus 4.6 outperforms in 6 benchmarks (AIME 2025, BrowseComp, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Verified, Tau2 Retail), while LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Jun 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 16.7x more expensive than LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 ($0.30/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($25.00/1M tokens) is 20.8x more expensive than LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 ($1.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Opus 4.6 is more expensive than LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Jun 12 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input tokens$5.00
Output tokens$25.00
Best providerAnthropic
Meituan
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerMeituan
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Opus 4.6 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601's 128,000 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Meituan
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Fri Jun 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Claude Opus 4.6 supports multimodal inputs, whereas LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 does not.

Claude Opus 4.6 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Opus 4.6

Text
Images
Audio
Video

LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 4.6 is licensed under a proprietary license, while LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Closed source

LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.6 was released on 2026-02-05, while LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 was released on 2026-01-14.

Claude Opus 4.6 is 1 month newer than LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601.

Claude Opus 4.6

Feb 5, 2026

4 months ago

3w newer
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601

Jan 14, 2026

4 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Opus 4.6 is available from Anthropic. LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is available from Meituan.

Claude Opus 4.6

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M

LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601

meituan logo
Meituan
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (1,000,000 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher AIME 2025 score (99.8% vs 99.6%)
Higher BrowseComp score (84.0% vs 56.6%)
Higher GPQA score (91.3% vs 80.5%)
Higher Humanity's Last Exam score (53.1% vs 25.2%)
Higher SWE-Bench Verified score (80.8% vs 70.0%)
Higher Tau2 Retail score (91.9% vs 88.6%)
Meituan
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Meituan
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.6 vs LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601.

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601?

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.6 is made by Anthropic and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is made by Meituan. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Claude Opus 4.6 compare to LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores Vending-Bench 2: 100.0%, AIME 2025: 99.8%, Tau2 Telecom: 99.3%, Graphwalks parents >128k: 95.4%, Tau2 Retail: 91.9%. LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 scores AIME 2025: 99.6%, Tau2 Telecom: 99.3%, Tau2 Retail: 88.6%, LiveCodeBench: 82.8%, GPQA: 80.5%.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 cheaper than LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601?

LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is 16.7x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.00/M input and $25.00/M output via anthropic. LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via meituan.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 4.6 and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601?

Claude Opus 4.6 supports 1.0M tokens and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Opus 4.6 and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601?

Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 128K), input pricing ($5.00 vs $0.30/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Opus 4.6 and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601?

Claude Opus 4.6 is developed by Anthropic and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is developed by Meituan.

Related comparisons