Tabbit
ResourcesBlogModels
Tabbit LogoTabbit

Tabbit — The AI Browser that Works for You

Topics

  • AI Browser Resources
  • Agentic Browser Resources
  • Browser Downloads and Install Guides
  • Browser Comparisons
  • AI Browser Alternatives
  • Browser Productivity Resources

Popular Guides

  • AI Browser
  • Agentic Browser Download
  • Best AI Browser 2026: Top 9 Tested & Ranked
  • AI Browser Download
  • Free AI Browser
  • Best AI Browser 2026
  • AI Browser Comparison 2026
  • AI Browser for Windows
  • AI Browser for Mac
  • Chrome Alternative 2026

Events

  • Tabbit Skill Competition
  • KPOP SBTI Fandom Personality Test
  • Tabbit Campus Creator Program
  • fifi's Picks: AI Skills for Research Papers
  • User Survey

About

  • Tabbit Blog
  • Press & Media
English
简体中文English
Reviews and evidence

LongCat 2.0 · Media / benchmark · Personal experience

AI Profit Boardroom field test: LongCat 2.0 game-building test and same-task comparison with GLM 5.2

The author's test reached a conclusion opposite to most community sentiment: LongCat 2.0's games were "playable but rough and buggy" (one build even showed a completely black screen), while GLM 5.2's outputs on the same tasks were "cleaner, smoother, and more polished." His recommendation was "worth playing with, not worth switching to" — a negative independent sample that should be read alongside positive evidence about LongCat 2.0.

Unverified: the original source could not be rechecked. Historical figures below are not current verified results.

Media / benchmarkPersonal experienceEdited 2026-09-20

Test conditions

Model/version
LongCat-2.0; source date: 2026-05-29.
Harness/task
Test method; LongCat 2.0 was asked to build several game demos: Dragon Realm, a Skyrim-style open world, and VoxelCraft. The conclusion was "playable, but buggy and rough — one build even went completely black at certain points."
Sample/gaps
Limitations noted: The author's test reached a conclusion opposite to most community sentiment: LongCat 2.0's games were "playable but rough and buggy" (one build even showed a completely black screen), while GLM 5.2's outputs on the same tasks were "cleaner, smoother, and more polished." His recommendation was "worth playing with, not worth switching to" — a negative independent sample that should be read alongside positive evidence about LongCat 2.0.

Key data and applicable tasks

One-sentence takeaway

The author's test reached a conclusion opposite to most community sentiment: LongCat 2.0's games were "playable but rough and buggy" (one build even showed a completely black screen), while GLM 5.2's outputs on the same tasks were "cleaner, smoother, and more polished." His recommendation was "worth playing with, not worth switching to" — a negative independent sample that should be read alongside positive evidence about LongCat 2.0.

Original report (key points)

Test method

  • LongCat 2.0 was asked to build several game demos: Dragon Realm, a Skyrim-style open world, and VoxelCraft. The conclusion was "playable, but buggy and rough — one build even went completely black at certain points."

  • The same game-building tasks were run with GLM 5.2 (a crypt game, Dragon Realm, a Skyrim-style world, and VoxelCraft): every GLM 5.2 version was cleaner, smoother, and more polished; "LongCat's VoxelCraft in particular was not in the same league. In every side-by-side comparison, GLM 5.2 won."

  • Official API experience: The official API section "looked broken," and topping up appeared to require China-specific settings, so the author switched to testing through the website chat.

Conclusion (original text)

  • "It's a genuinely cool, free, open-source release, and Meituan deserves credit for launching a serious model from outside the usual AI labs. But if I had to choose one open-source Chinese model to actually build with today, I would still choose GLM 5.2 — it's the strongest open-source option I've tested. LongCat 2.0 is worth playing with, not worth switching to."

  • Background information: The author confirmed that LongCat 2.0 is the model behind the free API "AoAlpha" (Owl Alpha); it has 1.6T parameters; it was trained entirely on Meituan's own chips, with zero Nvidia; and it comes with LSA, zero-compute experts, and MIPD (as written in the original; it should be MOPD).

Verification and applicable limits

  • Conflict-of-interest warning: The author earns a living selling AI Profit Boardroom subscriptions (the article repeatedly directs readers to join the community), so it is also marketing content. His conclusion that "GLM 5.2 is stronger" is directionally consistent with other evidence (AlphaSignal reports GLM-5.2 SWE-bench Pro 62.1 > LongCat 59.5, review 04), but the claim that LongCat's game builds are rough conflicts with positive official/community demos (prompt directories 07/08, review 09). This indicates high variance in these tasks, with results dependent on prompts and tiers.

  • The prompts, tiers, and reproduction links were not disclosed. Based only on the textual description, the outputs cannot be checked at the artifact level; the date field is anomalous and the publication timing is uncertain.

  • Task applicability: If this article is taken on its own terms, LongCat 2.0 is not suitable for creative coding tasks that demand high output completeness; if the official and r/opencodeCLI evidence is used, it is suitable. Overall: LongCat 2.0 has high variance on creative coding tasks, so run a small test first.

What this supports

  • The author's test reached a conclusion opposite to most community sentiment: LongCat 2.0's games were "playable but rough and buggy" (one build even showed a completely black screen), while GLM 5.2's outputs on the same tasks were "cleaner, smoother, and more polished." His recommendation was "worth playing with, not worth switching to" — a negative independent sample that should be read alongside positive evidence about LongCat 2.0.
  • Test method

What this does not support

  • The author's test reached a conclusion opposite to most community sentiment: LongCat 2.0's games were "playable but rough and buggy" (one build even showed a completely black screen), while GLM 5.2's outputs on the same tasks were "cleaner, smoother, and more polished." His recommendation was "worth playing with, not worth switching to" — a negative independent sample that should be read alongside positive evidence about LongCat 2.0.

Method, limits, and reproduction

The figures, task set, reasoning tier, and client conditions apply only to the listed source and collection snapshot. Different versions, harnesses, or providers must not be compared directly; undisclosed parameters remain unknown.

For a reproduction, fix the model version, provider or client, reasoning tier, tools, task-set version, sample count, and collection date, and record failures, retries, and human corrections. Full steps are in the source notes below.

Original source

aiprofitboardroom.com (blog, part of Julian Goldie's AI Profit Boardroom community) · Julian Goldie (an SEO/marketing-background author who also runs an AI community) · Original publication date 2026-05-29 · Site edit date 2026-09-20

Open original source

LongCat 2.0

Compare LongCat 2.0 in Tabbit

Download the Tabbit client to check model access

Read the full analysis

Overview · English

LongCat 2.0: what changed, where to use it, and what the price misses

LongCat 2.0 combines 1M context, open weights, and low provider pricing with real questions about tooling, data terms, and operational cost.

Related reviews

LongCat-2.0 Official Model Card: Specifications and Official Benchmarks (Including Comparison Tables with Gemini/GPT-5.5/Claude Opus)The official model card is the primary authoritative source for judging LongCat-2.0's suitable tasks: it scores 59.5 on SWE-bench Pro, ahead of GPT-5.5 (58.6) and Gemini 3.1 Pro (54.2), and reaches 70.8 on Terminal-Bench 2.1. However, it trails GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.8 on several benchmarks including BrowseComp, GPQA, and IFEval—in short, it is strong at coding and agent tasks, but not a leader in retrieval and general reasoning.LongCat-2.0 Official Technical Blog: Architecture, Training on Domestic Compute, and Inference Deployment (Release Notes)The official technical blog provides the complete technical foundation for LongCat-2.0 (LSA sparse attention, N-gram Embedding, 6D parallel training on domestic compute, and prefill-decode disaggregated deployment), making it useful for assessing the model's intended long-context and Agent capabilities, as well as reproducing the official benchmarks and deployment path.eesel Independent Review: LongCat-2.0's Agent Reliability and Hard Blockers to Production DeploymentThis independent review separates LongCat-2.0 into two questions: "can the model complete Agent work?" and "can the product enter enterprise production?" Public user reports support it as an inexpensive, stable coding executor, but its context specifications, tool contract, and data-governance documentation are insufficient to pass a sensitive-data production review.OpenRouter Channel Data: LongCat-2.0 Pricing, Measured Performance, and Third-Party Benchmarks (Artificial Analysis)The OpenRouter page provides a third-party view beyond the official figures: LongCat-2.0 is listed at $0.30/$1.20 per 1M tokens (with a 60% discount at collection time), while the actual weighted transaction price for input was only $0.03872/M (88.9% cache-hit rate); throughput was P50 29 tok/s, three-day availability 99.93%, and tool-call error rate 0.90%, with real traffic mainly coming from Hermes Agent (7.77B tokens) and Claude Code (3.31B tokens).LongCat-2.0 API Platform Quick Start (Official Quick Start + Chat Completions Reference + Pricing)The LongCat Claude Code guide configures a compatible endpoint and keeps the first task in a disposable worktree.LongCat-2.0 Chat Template and Tool-Calling Configuration (Official Hugging Face Model Card)The official model card’s chat template and tool-call examples are converted into a local inference configuration check.Claude Code Integration with LongCat-2.0 (Official Documentation)The official LongCat integration guide configures a named client and keeps the first run observable and reversible.Hermes Agent Integration with LongCat-2.0 (Official Documentation + Nous Portal Free Entry)The official LongCat guide “Hermes Agent Integration with LongCat-2.0 (Official Documentation + Nous Portal Free Entry)” configures a named client and keeps the first run observable and reversible.