Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs LongCat-2.5
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 scores 54.8 (C) on agent readiness against LongCat-2.5's 50.5 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LongCat-2.5 leads on risk and agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 6359 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Teams with a multi-GPU server that want an MIT-licensed flagship for long agent runs and coding
Ahead on
- Reach, 60 against 35
- Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 46
Watch for
574 GB in FP8 with no smaller build from inclusionAI, so no single machine under 690 GB of GPU memory runs it
Best for Operators with NPU clusters, and anyone tracking what the open flagships can do
Ahead on
- Risk, 60 against 45
- Agent interface, 75 against 60
Watch for
3,562 GB in BF16 and 1,336 GB at 4 bits
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Reach Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +25
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Memory 0, inclusionAI's only build is the FP8 release at 573.78 GB, × 1.2 = 688.5 GB, above 256 GB, and no runtime's library has a build. Runtimes 25, Released model code in Transformers 5.22.2 (bailing_hybrid), vLLM 0.33.0 (BailingMoeV3ForCausalLM, with ling3 tool and reasoning parsers), SGLang 0.5.23 (bailing_moe_v3.py, its bailing_hybrid config and MTP module) and llama.cpp b12242 (bailingmoe3), and Ollama, credited through its pinned llama.cpp as on the Ling-3.0-tiny listing: v0.40.16 sets LLAMA_CPP_VERSION to b12177. Builds 10, the release is FP8, the one quantised precision inclusionAI publishes for it. Terms 15, MIT in the card's metadata, with no use policy or other terms added on the card or in the repository. Download 10, the Hub API's model info gives gated false on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and no terms to accept. Hosted 0, the Hub API's provider mapping is empty for this repository on 10 November 2026. 0 + 25 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 60.
LongCat-2.5 35
Memory 0, the smallest build is Meituan's W4A4 repository, 1,336 GB, and 1,336 GB × 1.2 = 1,603 GB, far above 256 GB. The BF16 files are 3,562 GB. Runtimes 0, none of the six runs it in a released version: vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23, Transformers 5.22.2 and llama.cpp b12242 have no LongcatCausalLM or pro_v code, and the model code config.json names isn't in the repository. Builds 10, one quantised build from Meituan, the W4A4 repository (4-bit experts, 1,336 GB). Terms 15, MIT in the metadata, the LICENSE file and the card, with nothing added. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for both repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps no inference provider to it. 0 + 0 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 35.
Risk LongCat-2.5 +15
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 45
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25), less 10 because the card's documented vLLM command passes --trust-remote-code, which runs the repository's configuration_bailing_moe_v3.py, since vLLM 0.33.0 registers no bailing_hybrid config of its own. Provenance 15, files in the inclusionAI organisation that inclusion-ai.org links to, per the Ling-3.0-tiny listing (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results for the model on its card or in the training-content summary. Agent guidance 0, the card has nothing on prompt injection, refusals or safeguards, and inclusionAI publishes no guardrail probe for this model as it did for Ling 3.0. Licence risk 15, MIT with no use policy, no field-of-use limits, no threshold and no clause letting inclusionAI change or revoke it. Security programme 0, www.inclusion-ai.org answers 404 for security.txt on 10 November 2026, and the Ling-3.0-tiny listing found no SECURITY.md or disclosure policy in the inclusionAI .github repository. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.
LongCat-2.5 60
File safety 25, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files and no Python in the repository. Provenance 15, the files sit in the meituan-longcat organisation, the name of Meituan's GitHub organisation that the card links for deployment, and the card's licence names Meituan (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 5, General cautions under Usage Considerations: not evaluated for every use, assess accuracy, safety and fairness before sensitive use, and follow the law. Licence risk 15, MIT with no use policy, no threshold and no right to change the terms. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw on the card beyond a general contact, and Meituan's own security pages weren't looked up, so this scores as absent and is an open question. 25 + 15 + 0 + 5 + 15 + 0 = 60.
Agent interface LongCat-2.5 +15
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (6,042 characters), which handles tools, the thinking switch and preserved reasoning. Tool-calling format 10, only the template says how tools are declared (JSON in <tools>) and how calls come back (<tool_call>name with <arg_key> and <arg_value> pairs). Trained tool calling 20, the template tells the model it may call one or more functions and loops over every entry in an assistant message's tool_calls, and the card reports gains on agentic benchmarks, AA-Briefcase and AutomationBench-AA among them. Structured output 0, the card doesn't document JSON or JSON Schema output. Reasoning control 0, the card documents turning thinking on or off per request with chat_template_kwargs enable_thinking, and names the ling3 reasoning parser, but doesn't say where the reasoning text comes back. Context 10, 262,144 tokens natively in config.json (max_position_embeddings 262144, rope_scaling null) and per SGLang's cookbook. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.
LongCat-2.5 75
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (11,823 characters), with a copy in tokenizer_config.json. Tool-calling format 25, the card documents how tools are declared (the OpenAI function format) and how calls come back (tool_calls with an id, a name and JSON arguments, answered by a tool message), in a worked example against an OpenAI-compatible server. Trained tool calling 10, the card describes reinforcement learning on long agentic tasks and shows one tool call in a turn. Structured output 0, Nothing on the card about JSON or schema-constrained output. Reasoning control 10, enable_thinking on or off per request through chat_template_kwargs, with the reasoning returned as reasoning_content, both shown on the card. Context 10, the card states no context length, but config.json gives 524,288 positions and the card's own evaluations ran at 512K and 1M sequence lengths after what it calls long-context training, so 128K or more is taken as trained. 20 + 25 + 10 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 75.
Documentation and upkeep Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +10
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 56
Model card 11, Intended use (complex reasoning, multi-step tasks and agentic workflows), architecture, parameters (560B total, 25B active) and context (1M claimed) are on the card. Training data 15, the training-content summary the card links names the source categories (Common Crawl and other public datasets, commercially licensed data, the Ant Spider crawler, synthetic data), the size band (over 10 trillion text tokens), data collected up to about July 2026 and the filtering, without listing datasets with sizes. Last change 20, the newest commit, on 4 November 2026, edited the card, six days before this check, and the files went up on 27 October. Responsiveness 0, Neither of the 2 discussions that aren't pull requests (both opened on 27 October 2026) has a reply from an inclusionAI member. Version policy 5, the update went into a repository of its own and Ling-3.1-flash and Ling 3.0 stay in theirs. File health 5, the card states a 1M-token context while config.json gives 262,144 with no rope scaling, and its serve commands name the earlier repository as the model path. 11 + 15 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 5 = 56.
LongCat-2.5 46
Model card 11, Intended use, limitations (the usage considerations), the architecture and the parameter counts are on the card. Training data 5, A general description of the training stages and where the reinforcement learning tasks came from, with no sources, sizes or cut-off. Last change 20, the last commit, on 10 November 2026, updated the card, on the day of this check. Responsiveness 0, Neither of the 2 discussions that aren't pull requests (9 and 10 November 2026) has a reply from a meituan-longcat member, counted on 10 November by author flags and dates with a script, text not read. Version policy 5, LongCat-2.0 stays in its own repositories and 2.5 came out in new ones, with no dated note on the older ones that we read. File health 5, the template is in both places and agrees, but config.json's auto_map names configuration_longcat_oe and modeling_longcat_oe, which aren't in the repository, and the tokenizer config's 131,072-token length is a quarter of the config's 524,288 positions. 11 + 5 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 5 = 46.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | LongCat-2.5 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 60 | 35 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +25 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 45 | 60 | LongCat-2.5 +15 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 75 | LongCat-2.5 +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 56 | 46 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +10 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 54.8/100 | D 50.5/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | LongCat-2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | inclusionAI (Ant Group) | Meituan (LongCat) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-11-04 | 2026-11-10 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | not read yet |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
Verdicts
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
inclusionAI's newest flagship, a 560B hybrid mixture of experts under plain MIT that vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp run in released versions. It ships only as 574 GB of FP8, so it needs a multi-GPU server. The card overstates the context, documents little about tool calls, and has no safety results.
LongCat-2.5
Meituan's flagship is MIT-licensed and documented for tool calling and switchable reasoning, with strong numbers of its own on agentic coding. Almost nobody can run it: 3,562 GB of weights, a 1,336 GB 4-bit build for NPU accelerators, and no released runtime with its architecture. A model to watch until a runtime or a provider picks it up.
Before you call either
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Serve it with SGLang 0.5.23 or later on 8 H200 or 4 GB300 GPUs, per the card, and use this repository's name as the model path, not the earlier one the card's command shows
- With vLLM pass
--trust-remote-code,--tool-call-parser ling3and--reasoning-parser ling3 - Set
chat_template_kwargsenable_thinkingfalse for direct answers. Reasoning comes back inreasoning_contentper SGLang's cookbook - Plan on 262,144 tokens of context. The 1M figure needs the YaRN override in SGLang's cookbook
- Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 20, per the card
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
LongCat-2.5
- You can't run this on a workstation or a single GPU server. Plan for a provider, and none serves it yet
- If an operator serves it, call it as an OpenAI-compatible chat API with tools in the function format
- Pass
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingtrue or false - With thinking on, keep earlier reasoning in the history (
save_history_reasoning_contenttrue), as the card recommends - The card's results use temperature 1.0 and top_p 0.95
- Its benchmark table is Meituan's own. The unmarked scores are in-house
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Ling-3.1-flash-1019 or LongCat-2.5?
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 scores 54.8 (C) on agent readiness against LongCat-2.5's 50.5 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LongCat-2.5 leads on risk and agent interface.
Other comparisons with Ling-3.1-flash-1019 or LongCat-2.5
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs LongCat-2.5
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LongCat-2.5
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LongCat-2.5
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs LongCat-2.5
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs LongCat-2.5
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs LongCat-2.5
- Cola2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cola2 vs LongCat-2.5
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LongCat-2.5
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LongCat-2.5
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LongCat-2.5
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LongCat-2.5
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LongCat-2.5
- Devstral Small 2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Devstral Small 2 vs LongCat-2.5
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LongCat-2.5
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LongCat-2.5
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LongCat-2.5
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LongCat-2.5
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LongCat-2.5
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LongCat-2.5
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LongCat-2.5
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LongCat-2.5
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LongCat-2.5
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LongCat-2.5
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3 vs LongCat-2.5
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-120b vs LongCat-2.5
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-20b vs LongCat-2.5
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LongCat-2.5
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LongCat-2.5
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LongCat-2.5
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LongCat-2.5
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy3 vs LongCat-2.5
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling-Small vs LongCat-2.5
- Inkling vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling vs LongCat-2.5
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LongCat-2.5
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LongCat-2.5
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3 vs LongCat-2.5
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kolibri-1 vs LongCat-2.5
- Kronos vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kronos vs LongCat-2.5
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna M.1 vs LongCat-2.5
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LongCat-2.5
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LongCat-2.5
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LBS-27B vs LongCat-2.5
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LongCat-2.5
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs LongCat-2.5
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs LongCat-2.5
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs LongCat-2.5
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-VL-2B vs LongCat-2.5
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs LongCat-2.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Mistral Large 4
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs occamy-1.0
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs ZAYA1-8B
- LongCat-2.5 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LongCat-2.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- LongCat-2.5 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- LongCat-2.5 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LongCat-2.5 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- LongCat-2.5 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- LongCat-2.5 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- LongCat-2.5 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- LongCat-2.5 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- LongCat-2.5 vs Mistral Large 4
- LongCat-2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LongCat-2.5 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- LongCat-2.5 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- LongCat-2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- LongCat-2.5 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- LongCat-2.5 vs occamy-1.0
- LongCat-2.5 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- LongCat-2.5 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- LongCat-2.5 vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- LongCat-2.5 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- LongCat-2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- LongCat-2.5 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- LongCat-2.5 vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- LongCat-2.5 vs SmolLM3-3B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LongCat-2.5 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LongCat-2.5 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- LongCat-2.5 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- LongCat-2.5 vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- LongCat-2.5 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- LongCat-2.5 vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019-vs-longcat-2-5.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/ling-3-1-flash-1019.json·/api/v1/tools/longcat-2-5.json - From a terminal
anchor compare ling-3-1-flash-1019 longcat-2-5(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "ling-3-1-flash-1019", "b": "longcat-2-5"}at/mcp, no key