Model comparison

Longcat Flash Chat vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Longcat Flash Chat Meituan

41.5

Rank #121 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #64 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Longcat Flash Chat scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 27B in 7 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 31.5 to 18.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 17.7% for Longcat Flash Chat and 54.5% for Qwen3.8 27B.

Side by side

Longcat Flash Chat and Qwen3.8 27B specifications
Longcat Flash ChatQwen3.8 27B
ProviderMeituanAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.545.3
Released—2026-08-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—33K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.99
Output $ / M tokens—$1.49
Results tracked1928

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Longcat Flash Chat: 42.9 (#85), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLongcat Flash ChatQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Coding14711487
LMArena WebDev—1592
SciCode—46.6%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Longcat Flash Chat: 18.3 (#267), Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLongcat Flash ChatQwen3.8 27B
NYT Connections (extended)17.7%54.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14401459
Kagi LLM Benchmark43.9%—
CritPt—5.4%
DTBench—88%
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
Epoch Capabilities Index—149.38

Math Too close to call

Longcat Flash Chat: 36.6 (#107), Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLongcat Flash ChatQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Math14411453
ProofBench—16%

Knowledge Too close to call

Longcat Flash Chat: 40.0 (#111), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLongcat Flash ChatQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert14541482

Multimodal Not comparable

Longcat Flash Chat: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkLongcat Flash ChatQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1270

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Longcat Flash Chat: 52.1 (#95), Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLongcat Flash ChatQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English14041431
LMArena Chinese14651504
LMArena French14571468
LMArena German14091435
LMArena Japanese13731392
LMArena Korean13721389
LMArena Russian13961421
LMArena Spanish14451444

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Longcat Flash Chat: 74.6 (#92), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLongcat Flash ChatQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14111436

Long Context Too close to call

Longcat Flash Chat: 43.5 (#89), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLongcat Flash ChatQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query14251448

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Longcat Flash Chat: 61.2 (#88), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLongcat Flash ChatQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text14271441
LMArena Creative Writing13881382
LMArena Multi-Turn14181443
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671

Frequently asked questions

Is Longcat Flash Chat better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Longcat Flash Chat or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 42.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Longcat Flash Chat and Qwen3.8 27B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Longcat Flash Chat has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper