LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 vs Qwen3 Max
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 leads the LLM Stats Score 35.4 to 21.7. LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is 3.1x cheaper per token.
Meituan · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 35.4 to 21.7, ranking #99 overall.
In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is roughly 3.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Qwen3 Max also accepts a larger context window (256,000 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-Thinking-2601
- overall performance matters — it scores 35.4 and ranks #99 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 3.1x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jan 2026
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose Qwen3 Max
- you process long inputs — it offers a 256,000 token context window
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
11 reported for LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 · 6 for Qwen3 Max
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 outperforms in 3 benchmarks (AIME 2025, GPQA, SWE-Bench Verified), while Qwen3 Max is better at 0 benchmarks.
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 ($0.30/1M tokens) is 1.7x cheaper than Qwen3 Max ($0.50/1M tokens).
For output processing, LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 4.2x cheaper than Qwen3 Max ($5.00/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3 Max is more expensive than LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Qwen3 Max has 440.0B more parameters than LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601, making it 78.6% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3 Max accepts 256,000 input tokens compared to LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601's 128,000 tokens. Qwen3 Max can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is limited to 128,000 tokens.
License
Usage and distribution terms
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3 Max uses a proprietary license.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
MIT
Open weights
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 was released on 2026-01-14, while Qwen3 Max was released on 2025-12-15.
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is 1 month newer than Qwen3 Max.
Jan 14, 2026
8 months ago
1mo newerDec 15, 2025
9 months 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-Flash-Thinking-2601 is available from Meituan. Qwen3 Max is available from Novita, DeepInfra.
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
Qwen3 Max
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 and Qwen3 Max side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 vs Qwen3 Max.