LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.8-27B

LongCat-2.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 44.0. LongCat-2.5 is 2.0x 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 44.0, ranking #20 overall.

In the 6 individual benchmarks reported for both models, LongCat-2.5 wins 5; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, LongCat-2.5 is roughly 2.0x 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 coding and agents — it leads those capability indexes
you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 5 of 6 exact shared results
cost matters — it's about 2.0x cheaper per token
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 Qwen3.8-27B

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Better token value: LongCat-2.5

LongCat-2.5

Meituan

Qwen3.8-27B

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Core performance indexes

LLM Stats Score

50.0

#20 · 19 evals

Best

44.0

#56 · 23 evals

Reasoning

48.3

#21 · 9 evals

Best

43.6

#52 · 13 evals

Coding

38.6

#27 · 11 evals

Best

29.7

#71 · 7 evals

Agents

36.3

#23 · 14 evals

Best

29.4

#57 · 12 evals

Cost, coverage & limits

Benchmark wins

5 of 6

Best

1 of 6

Input price

$0.30 / M

Best

$0.40 / M

Output price

$1.20 / M

Best

$3.00 / M

Context window

1,048,576

Best

262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

5 shared

Index

LongCat-2.5

Qwen3.8-27B

Math

37.2#37 · 2 evals

30.6#82 · 2 evals

Vision

32.5#29 · 4 evals

33.0#26 · 13 evals

Tool use

30.2#15 · 5 evals

21.2#68 · 2 evals

Multimodal

34.8#15 · 4 evals

36.0#12 · 9 evals

Productivity

13.1#11 · 2 evals

5.1#21 · 2 evals

Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

23 reported for LongCat-2.5 · 26 for Qwen3.8-27B

6 shared

LongCat-2.5 outperforms in 5 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, MathVision, NL2Repo, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vision2Web), while Qwen3.8-27B is better at 0 benchmarks.

LongCat-2.5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Nov 02 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

LongCat-2.5 costs less

For input processing, LongCat-2.5 ($0.30/1M tokens) is 1.3x cheaper than Qwen3.8-27B ($0.40/1M tokens).

For output processing, LongCat-2.5 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 2.5x cheaper than Qwen3.8-27B ($3.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Qwen3.8-27B is more expensive than LongCat-2.5.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers

Mon Nov 02 2026 • llm-stats.com

LongCat-2.5

Input tokens$0.30

Output tokens$1.20

Best providerMeituan

Qwen3.8-27B

Input tokens$0.40

Output tokens$3.00

Best providerDeepinfra

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

1572.2B diff

LongCat-2.5 has 1572.2B more parameters than Qwen3.8-27B, making it 5659.2% larger.

LongCat-2.5

1.6Tparameters

Qwen3.8-27B

27.8Bparameters

1600.0B

LongCat-2.5

27.8B

Qwen3.8-27B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

LongCat-2.5 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.8-27B's 262,144 tokens. Qwen3.8-27B can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while LongCat-2.5 is limited to 131,072 tokens.

LongCat-2.5

Input1,048,576 tokens

Output131,072 tokens

Qwen3.8-27B

Input262,144 tokens

Output262,144 tokens

Mon Nov 02 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both LongCat-2.5 and Qwen3.8-27B support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

LongCat-2.5

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Qwen3.8-27B

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

LongCat-2.5 was released on 2026-11-01, while Qwen3.8-27B was released on 2026-08-14.

LongCat-2.5 is 3 months newer than Qwen3.8-27B.

LongCat-2.5

Nov 1, 2026

-1 days ago

2mo newer

Qwen3.8-27B

Aug 14, 2026

2 months 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. Qwen3.8-27B is available from DeepInfra, FriendliAI.

LongCat-2.5

Meituan

Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M

Qwen3.8-27B

Deepinfra

Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.00/1M

FriendliAI

* 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 Qwen3.8-27B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

LongCat-2.5

✓ Preferred

Qwen3.8-27B

Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.8-27B.

Which is better, LongCat-2.5 or Qwen3.8-27B?

LongCat-2.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.0 to 44.0. LongCat-2.5 is made by Meituan and Qwen3.8-27B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. 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 Qwen3.8-27B 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%. Qwen3.8-27B scores MathVision: 94.6%, OmniDocBench 1.5: 91.1%, LiveCodeBench v6: 90.3%, CharXiv-R: 90.2%, GPQA: 89.2%.

Is LongCat-2.5 cheaper than Qwen3.8-27B?

LongCat-2.5 is 1.3x cheaper for input tokens. LongCat-2.5 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via meituan. Qwen3.8-27B costs $0.40/M input and $3.00/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for LongCat-2.5 and Qwen3.8-27B?

LongCat-2.5 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.8-27B supports 262K 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 Qwen3.8-27B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (50.0 vs 44.0), context window (1.0M vs 262K), input pricing ($0.30 vs $0.40/M), licensing (Unknown vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes LongCat-2.5 and Qwen3.8-27B?

LongCat-2.5 is developed by Meituan and Qwen3.8-27B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.8-27B