The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Opus 4.6 vs LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601

Claude Opus 4.6 leads the LLM Stats Score 44.9 to 35.3. LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is 19.0x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Meituan · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Opus 4.6 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 44.9 to 35.3, ranking #34 overall.

In the 7 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Opus 4.6 wins 6; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

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.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Opus 4.6

  • overall performance matters — it scores 44.9 and ranks #34 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 6 of 7 exact shared results
  • 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

  • cost matters — it's about 19.0x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Opus 4.6
Anthropic
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
Meituan
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
44.9
#34
35.3
#86
Reasoning
45.4
#29
35.5
#81
Coding
32.8
#38
18.8
#109
Agents
28.0
#40
9.6
#121
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
6 of 7
1 of 7
Input price
$5.00 / M
$0.30 / M
Output price
$25.00 / M
$1.20 / M
Context window
1,000,000
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

4 shared
Index
Claude Opus 4.6
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
Math
40.1#16
30.5#74
Tool use
24.1#38
24.5#37
Research
25.1#13
13.1#47
Writing
32.0#1
30.1#2
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

27 reported for Claude Opus 4.6 · 11 for LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601

7 shared

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.

Sun Sep 20 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

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
Sun Sep 20 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
Sun Sep 20 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

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

7 months ago

3w newer
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601

Jan 14, 2026

8 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→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 4.6 and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Opus 4.6
✓ Preferred
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
Open in Playground

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 leads the LLM Stats Score 44.9 to 35.3. 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 capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits 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 LLM Stats Score (44.9 vs 35.3), 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