LongCat-Flash-Chat vs Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking
LongCat-Flash-Chat and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking are closely matched at 19.8 and 23.8 on the LLM Stats Score. Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking is 1.1x cheaper per token.
Meituan · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
LongCat-Flash-Chat and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 19.8 and 23.8.
In the 7 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking is roughly 1.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
LongCat-Flash-Chat also accepts a larger context window (128,000 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-Flash-Chat
- you process long inputs — it offers a 128,000 token context window
Choose Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 7 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 1.1x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2025
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
16 reported for LongCat-Flash-Chat · 23 for Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking
LongCat-Flash-Chat outperforms in 3 benchmarks (IFEval, Tau2 Retail, Tau2 Telecom), while Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking is better at 4 benchmarks (AIME 2025, GPQA, MMLU-Pro, Tau2 Airline).
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking has a slight edge in benchmark performance.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, LongCat-Flash-Chat ($0.30/1M tokens) is 2.0x more expensive than Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking ($0.15/1M tokens).
For output processing, LongCat-Flash-Chat ($1.20/1M tokens) is 1.3x cheaper than Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking ($1.50/1M tokens).
In conclusion, LongCat-Flash-Chat is more expensive than Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
LongCat-Flash-Chat has 480.0B more parameters than Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking, making it 600.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
LongCat-Flash-Chat accepts 128,000 input tokens compared to Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking's 65,536 tokens. LongCat-Flash-Chat can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking is limited to 65,536 tokens.
License
Usage and distribution terms
LongCat-Flash-Chat is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
MIT
Open weights
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
LongCat-Flash-Chat was released on 2025-08-29, while Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking was released on 2025-09-10.
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking is 0 month newer than LongCat-Flash-Chat.
Aug 29, 2025
1.1 years ago
Sep 10, 2025
1.0 years ago
1w newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
LongCat-Flash-Chat is available from Meituan. Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking is available from Novita.
LongCat-Flash-Chat
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against LongCat-Flash-Chat and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about LongCat-Flash-Chat vs Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking.