The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

LongCat-2.5 vs LongCat-Flash-Thinking

LongCat-2.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 28.1. LongCat-2.5 and LongCat-Flash-Thinking cost the same.

Meituan · Meituan · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

LongCat-2.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 28.1, ranking #20 overall.

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 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 process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026

Choose LongCat-Flash-Thinking

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

LongCat-2.5
Meituan
LongCat-Flash-Thinking
Meituan
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
50.0
#20
28.1
#168
Reasoning
48.3
#21
28.2
#159
Coding
38.6
#27
13.8
#165
Agents
36.3
#23
12.7
#128
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.30 / M
$0.30 / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
$1.20 / M
Context window
1,048,576
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
LongCat-2.5
LongCat-Flash-Thinking
Math
37.2#37
28.1#106
Tool use
30.2#15
15.2#114
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

23 reported for LongCat-2.5 · 14 for LongCat-Flash-Thinking

No common benchmarks found

LongCat-2.5 and LongCat-Flash-Thinkingdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

For input processing, LongCat-2.5 ($0.30/1M tokens) costs the same as LongCat-Flash-Thinking ($0.30/1M tokens).

For output processing, LongCat-2.5 ($1.20/1M tokens) costs the same as LongCat-Flash-Thinking ($1.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, LongCat-2.5 and LongCat-Flash-Thinking cost the same.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Nov 06 2026 • llm-stats.com
Meituan
LongCat-2.5
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerMeituan
Meituan
LongCat-Flash-Thinking
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerMeituan
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

1040.0B diff

LongCat-2.5 has 1040.0B more parameters than LongCat-Flash-Thinking, making it 185.7% larger.

Meituan
LongCat-2.5
1.6Tparameters
Meituan
LongCat-Flash-Thinking
560.0Bparameters
1600.0B
LongCat-2.5
560.0B
LongCat-Flash-Thinking

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

LongCat-2.5 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to LongCat-Flash-Thinking's 128,000 tokens. LongCat-2.5 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while LongCat-Flash-Thinking is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Meituan
LongCat-2.5
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Meituan
LongCat-Flash-Thinking
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Fri Nov 06 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

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

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

LongCat-2.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

LongCat-Flash-Thinking

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

LongCat-2.5 was released on 2026-11-01, while LongCat-Flash-Thinking was released on 2025-09-22.

LongCat-2.5 is 14 months newer than LongCat-Flash-Thinking.

LongCat-2.5

Nov 1, 2026

4 days ago

1.1yr newer
LongCat-Flash-Thinking

Sep 22, 2025

1.1 years 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

LongCat-2.5 is available from Meituan. LongCat-Flash-Thinking is available from Meituan.

LongCat-2.5

meituan logo
Meituan
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M

LongCat-Flash-Thinking

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 LongCat-2.5 and LongCat-Flash-Thinking side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

LongCat-2.5
✓ Preferred
LongCat-Flash-Thinking
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about LongCat-2.5 vs LongCat-Flash-Thinking.

Which is better, LongCat-2.5 or LongCat-Flash-Thinking?

LongCat-2.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 28.1. LongCat-2.5 is made by Meituan and LongCat-Flash-Thinking is made by Meituan. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does LongCat-2.5 compare to LongCat-Flash-Thinking in benchmarks?

LongCat-2.5 scores MathVision: 96.5%, BrowseComp: 91.9%, CharXiv-R: 90.2%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 88.4%, Video-MME: 85.2%. LongCat-Flash-Thinking scores MATH-500: 99.2%, ZebraLogic: 95.5%, AIME 2024: 93.3%, AIME 2025: 90.6%, MMLU-Redux: 89.3%.

Is LongCat-2.5 cheaper than LongCat-Flash-Thinking?

Both models cost $0.30 per million input tokens.

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

LongCat-2.5 supports 1.0M tokens and LongCat-Flash-Thinking 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 LongCat-2.5 and LongCat-Flash-Thinking?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (50.0 vs 28.1), context window (1.0M vs 128K), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Unknown vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Related comparisons