LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

LongCat-2.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched at 50.0 and 47.8 on the LLM Stats Score. Qwen3.8 Flash is 2.3x cheaper per token.

Meituan · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

LongCat-2.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 50.0 and 47.8.

In the 5 individual benchmarks reported for both models, LongCat-2.5 wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Qwen3.8 Flash is roughly 2.3x 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

you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 5 exact shared results
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 Flash

cost matters — it's about 2.3x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Better token value: Qwen3.8 Flash

LongCat-2.5

Meituan

Qwen3.8 Flash

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Core performance indexes

LLM Stats Score

50.0

#20 · 19 evals

Best

47.8

#36 · 22 evals

Reasoning

48.3

#21 · 9 evals

Best

48.1

#23 · 11 evals

Coding

38.6

#27 · 11 evals

Best

33.4

#49 · 6 evals

Agents

36.3

#23 · 14 evals

Best

32.9

#41 · 11 evals

Cost, coverage & limits

Benchmark wins

4 of 5

Best

1 of 5

Input price

$0.30 / M

$0.15 / M

Best

Output price

$1.20 / M

$0.47 / M

Best

Context window

1,048,576

Best

1,000,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

5 shared

Index

LongCat-2.5

Qwen3.8 Flash

Math

37.2#37 · 2 evals

32.3#66 · 2 evals

Vision

32.5#29 · 4 evals

33.9#21 · 11 evals

Tool use

30.2#15 · 5 evals

30.0#17 · 2 evals

Multimodal

34.8#15 · 4 evals

34.7#17 · 7 evals

Productivity

13.1#11 · 2 evals

14.5#7 · 2 evals

Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

23 reported for LongCat-2.5 · 22 for Qwen3.8 Flash

5 shared

LongCat-2.5 outperforms in 4 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, MathVision, NL2Repo, Vision2Web), while Qwen3.8 Flash is better at 1 benchmark (CharXiv-R).

LongCat-2.5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Sat Nov 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3.8 Flash costs less

For input processing, LongCat-2.5 ($0.30/1M tokens) is 2.0x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, LongCat-2.5 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 2.6x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens).

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

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

Lowest available price from all providers

Sat Nov 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

LongCat-2.5

Input tokens$0.30

Output tokens$1.20

Best providerMeituan

Qwen3.8 Flash

Input tokens$0.15

Output tokens$0.47

Best providerNovita

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

1475.0B diff

LongCat-2.5 has 1475.0B more parameters than Qwen3.8 Flash, making it 1180.0% larger.

LongCat-2.5

1.6Tparameters

Qwen3.8 Flash

125.0Bparameters

1600.0B

LongCat-2.5

125.0B

Qwen3.8 Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

LongCat-2.5 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.8 Flash's 1,000,000 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 131,072 tokens.

LongCat-2.5

Input1,048,576 tokens

Output131,072 tokens

Qwen3.8 Flash

Input1,000,000 tokens

Output131,072 tokens

Sat Nov 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both LongCat-2.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Flash

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

LongCat-2.5 was released on 2026-11-01, while Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26.

LongCat-2.5 is 2 months newer than Qwen3.8 Flash.

LongCat-2.5

Nov 1, 2026

5 days ago

2mo newer

Qwen3.8 Flash

Aug 26, 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 Flash is available from Novita.

LongCat-2.5

Meituan

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

Qwen3.8 Flash

Novita

Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.47/1M

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

LongCat-2.5

✓ Preferred

Qwen3.8 Flash

Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash.

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

LongCat-2.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 50.0 and 47.8. LongCat-2.5 is made by Meituan and Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Flash 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 Flash scores MathVision: 95.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 91.9%, GPQA: 91.7%, CharXiv-R: 90.6%, RealWorldQA: 88.5%.

Is LongCat-2.5 cheaper than Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash is 2.0x cheaper for input tokens. LongCat-2.5 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via meituan. Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15/M input and $0.47/M output via novita.

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

LongCat-2.5 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.8 Flash supports 1.0M 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 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (50.0 vs 47.8), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.30 vs $0.15/M), licensing (Unknown vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes LongCat-2.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash?

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

LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash