LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
LongCat-2.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 1.6. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 5.8x cheaper per token.
Meituan · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
LongCat-2.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 1.6, ranking #20 overall.
On price, Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct 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 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 Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
- cost matters — it's about 5.8x cheaper per token
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
23 reported for LongCat-2.5 · 15 for Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
LongCat-2.5 and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instructdon'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) is 3.3x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).
For output processing, LongCat-2.5 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 13.3x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).
In conclusion, LongCat-2.5 is more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
LongCat-2.5 has 1568.0B more parameters than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct, making it 4900.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
LongCat-2.5 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. LongCat-2.5 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
LongCat-2.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct 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
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
LongCat-2.5 was released on 2026-11-01, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.
LongCat-2.5 is 26 months newer than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.
Nov 1, 2026
3 days ago
2.1yr newerSep 19, 2024
2.1 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
LongCat-2.5 is available from Meituan. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Fireworks.
LongCat-2.5
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against LongCat-2.5 and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.