LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3 32B
LongCat-2.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 17.9. Qwen3 32B is 4.0x 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 17.9, ranking #20 overall.
On price, Qwen3 32B is roughly 4.0x 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 Qwen3 32B
- cost matters — it's about 4.0x 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 · 9 for Qwen3 32B
LongCat-2.5 and Qwen3 32Bdon'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 3.8x more expensive than Qwen3 32B ($0.08/1M tokens).
For output processing, LongCat-2.5 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 4.3x more expensive than Qwen3 32B ($0.28/1M tokens).
In conclusion, LongCat-2.5 is more expensive than Qwen3 32B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
LongCat-2.5 has 1567.2B more parameters than Qwen3 32B, making it 4778.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
LongCat-2.5 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3 32B's 40,960 tokens. LongCat-2.5 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen3 32B is limited to 40,960 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
LongCat-2.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen3 32B 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
Qwen3 32B
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
LongCat-2.5 was released on 2026-11-01, while Qwen3 32B was released on 2025-04-29.
LongCat-2.5 is 18 months newer than Qwen3 32B.
Nov 1, 2026
4 days ago
1.5yr newerApr 29, 2025
1.5 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. Qwen3 32B is available from DeepInfra, Novita, Sambanova.
LongCat-2.5
Qwen3 32B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against LongCat-2.5 and Qwen3 32B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3 32B.