The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.0 Flash vs LongCat-2.5

LongCat-2.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 35.1. Ling 3.0 Flash is 5.8x cheaper per token.

InclusionAI · Meituan · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

LongCat-2.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 35.1, ranking #20 overall.

In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, LongCat-2.5 wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Ling 3.0 Flash is roughly 5.8x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

LongCat-2.5 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 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 Ling 3.0 Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 5.8x cheaper per token

Choose LongCat-2.5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 50.0 and ranks #20 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 4 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.0 Flash
InclusionAI
LongCat-2.5
Meituan
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
35.1
#112
50.0
#20
Reasoning
34.3
#113
48.3
#21
Coding
24.4
#96
38.6
#27
Agents
18.9
#95
36.3
#23
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 4
4 of 4
Input price
$0.06 / M
$0.30 / M
Output price
$0.18 / M
$1.20 / M
Context window
131,072
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Ling 3.0 Flash
LongCat-2.5
Math
29.6#92
37.2#37
Tool use
16.6#101
30.2#15
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

19 reported for Ling 3.0 Flash · 23 for LongCat-2.5

4 shared

Ling 3.0 Flash outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while LongCat-2.5 is better at 4 benchmarks (BrowseComp, MCP Atlas, SkillsBench, Terminal-Bench 2.1).

LongCat-2.5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Wed Nov 04 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Ling 3.0 Flash costs less

For input processing, Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.06/1M tokens) is 5.0x cheaper than LongCat-2.5 ($0.30/1M tokens).

For output processing, Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.18/1M tokens) is 6.7x cheaper than LongCat-2.5 ($1.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, LongCat-2.5 is more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Wed Nov 04 2026 • llm-stats.com
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
Input tokens$0.06
Output tokens$0.18
Best providerDeepinfra
Meituan
LongCat-2.5
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerMeituan
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

1476.0B diff

LongCat-2.5 has 1476.0B more parameters than Ling 3.0 Flash, making it 1190.3% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
124.0Bparameters
Meituan
LongCat-2.5
1.6Tparameters
124.0B
Ling 3.0 Flash
1600.0B
LongCat-2.5

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

LongCat-2.5 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Ling 3.0 Flash's 131,072 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 131,072 tokens.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Meituan
LongCat-2.5
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Wed Nov 04 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

LongCat-2.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.0 Flash does not.

LongCat-2.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Ling 3.0 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

LongCat-2.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.0 Flash was released on 2026-08-04, while LongCat-2.5 was released on 2026-11-01.

LongCat-2.5 is 3 months newer than Ling 3.0 Flash.

Ling 3.0 Flash

Aug 4, 2026

3 months ago

LongCat-2.5

Nov 1, 2026

3 days ago

2mo newer

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

Ling 3.0 Flash is available from DeepInfra. LongCat-2.5 is available from Meituan.

Ling 3.0 Flash

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.06/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M

LongCat-2.5

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?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Ling 3.0 Flash and LongCat-2.5 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.0 Flash
✓ Preferred
LongCat-2.5
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.0 Flash vs LongCat-2.5.

Which is better, Ling 3.0 Flash or LongCat-2.5?

LongCat-2.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 35.1. Ling 3.0 Flash is made by InclusionAI and LongCat-2.5 is made by Meituan. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Ling 3.0 Flash compare to LongCat-2.5 in benchmarks?

Ling 3.0 Flash scores AIME 2026: 93.2%, Multi-IF: 87.7%, HMMT Feb 26: 87.0%, IMO-AnswerBench: 83.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 82.8%. LongCat-2.5 scores MathVision: 96.5%, BrowseComp: 91.9%, CharXiv-R: 90.2%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 88.4%, Video-MME: 85.2%.

Is Ling 3.0 Flash cheaper than LongCat-2.5?

Ling 3.0 Flash is 5.0x cheaper for input tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.06/M input and $0.18/M output via deepinfra. LongCat-2.5 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via meituan.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.0 Flash and LongCat-2.5?

Ling 3.0 Flash supports 131K tokens and LongCat-2.5 supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Ling 3.0 Flash and LongCat-2.5?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (35.1 vs 50.0), context window (131K vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.06 vs $0.30/M), multimodal support (no vs yes). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.0 Flash and LongCat-2.5?

Ling 3.0 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and LongCat-2.5 is developed by Meituan.

Related comparisons