The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

LongCat-2.5 vs Phi 4

LongCat-2.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 4.9. Phi 4 is 6.0x cheaper per token.

Meituan · Microsoft · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

LongCat-2.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 4.9, ranking #20 overall.

On price, Phi 4 is roughly 6.0x 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 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 Phi 4

  • cost matters — it's about 6.0x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

LongCat-2.5
Meituan
Phi 4
Microsoft
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
50.0
#20
4.9
#336
Reasoning
48.3
#21
6.0
#326
Coding
38.6
#27
3.3
#253
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.30 / M
$0.07 / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
$0.14 / M
Context window
1,048,576
16,384

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
LongCat-2.5
Phi 4
Math
37.2#37
12.8#250
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

23 reported for LongCat-2.5 · 13 for Phi 4

No common benchmarks found

LongCat-2.5 and Phi 4don'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

Phi 4 costs less

For input processing, LongCat-2.5 ($0.30/1M tokens) is 4.3x more expensive than Phi 4 ($0.07/1M tokens).

For output processing, LongCat-2.5 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 8.6x more expensive than Phi 4 ($0.14/1M tokens).

In conclusion, LongCat-2.5 is more expensive than Phi 4.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Nov 03 2026 • llm-stats.com
Meituan
LongCat-2.5
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerMeituan
Microsoft
Phi 4
Input tokens$0.07
Output tokens$0.14
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

1585.3B diff

LongCat-2.5 has 1585.3B more parameters than Phi 4, making it 10784.4% larger.

Meituan
LongCat-2.5
1.6Tparameters
Microsoft
Phi 4
14.7Bparameters
1600.0B
LongCat-2.5
14.7B
Phi 4

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

LongCat-2.5 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Phi 4's 16,384 tokens. LongCat-2.5 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Phi 4 is limited to 16,384 tokens.

Meituan
LongCat-2.5
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Microsoft
Phi 4
Input16,384 tokens
Output16,384 tokens
Tue Nov 03 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

LongCat-2.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Phi 4 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

Phi 4

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

LongCat-2.5 was released on 2026-11-01, while Phi 4 was released on 2024-12-12.

LongCat-2.5 is 23 months newer than Phi 4.

LongCat-2.5

Nov 1, 2026

-1 days ago

1.9yr newer
Phi 4

Dec 12, 2024

1.9 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Phi 4 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-06-01, while LongCat-2.5's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Phi 4's training data extends to 2024-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without LongCat-2.5's cutoff date.

LongCat-2.5

—

Phi 4

Jun 2024

Provider Availability

LongCat-2.5 is available from Meituan. Phi 4 is available from DeepInfra.

LongCat-2.5

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

Phi 4

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.07/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.14/1M
* 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 Phi 4 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

LongCat-2.5
✓ Preferred
Phi 4
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about LongCat-2.5 vs Phi 4.

Which is better, LongCat-2.5 or Phi 4?

LongCat-2.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 4.9. LongCat-2.5 is made by Meituan and Phi 4 is made by Microsoft. 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 Phi 4 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%. Phi 4 scores MMLU: 84.8%, HumanEval+: 82.8%, HumanEval: 82.6%, MGSM: 80.6%, MATH: 80.4%.

Is LongCat-2.5 cheaper than Phi 4?

Phi 4 is 4.3x cheaper for input tokens. LongCat-2.5 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via meituan. Phi 4 costs $0.07/M input and $0.14/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for LongCat-2.5 and Phi 4?

LongCat-2.5 supports 1.0M tokens and Phi 4 supports 16K 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 Phi 4?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (50.0 vs 4.9), context window (1.0M vs 16K), input pricing ($0.30 vs $0.07/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Unknown vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes LongCat-2.5 and Phi 4?

LongCat-2.5 is developed by Meituan and Phi 4 is developed by Microsoft.

Related comparisons