As of 2026-08-17, BenchLM found no shared third-party benchmark results between GPT-5.5 and LongCat-2.0 (38 for GPT-5.5 and 0 for LongCat-2.0), so "the public evidence does not support any quality verdict." This is an authoritative boundary reminder for claims that "LongCat 2.0 beats GPT-5.5": the official SWE-bench Pro result of 59.5 > 58.6 has not yet been retested by any independent source.
Decision readout: "The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead."
Evidence distribution: 0 shared results; 38 for GPT-5.5 only; 0 for LongCat-2.0 only; 0 of the 8 categories support like-for-like comparison.
Category averages (GPT-5.5 side only): Agentic 81.6, Coding 58.6, Reasoning 85.0, Knowledge 57.8, Math 47.6, Multimodal 70.4 (with no comparable LongCat data).
Cost convention: In BenchLM's data, LongCat-2.0 is treated as "self-hosted, infrastructure cost variable" (its catalog has no official API token price) — note that this differs from the direct official/OpenRouter pricing currently offered (prompt directory 01, review 03).
Recommendation: Use the cost, context, and runtime rows to make decisions; do not treat point scores as universal answers.
This is a document about "reproducibility": it does not evaluate the models itself, but records the fact that "there is no reproducible evidence." It aligns with AlphaSignal's observation that there were no independent third-party scores at launch (review 04), indicating that independent benchmarks for LongCat-2.0 remained absent as of mid-August.
BenchLM includes published third-party benchmarks; official self-reported scores (such as SWE-bench Pro 59.5, review 01) are outside its inclusion scope. The two are different measurement conventions, not contradictory results.
Task applicability: Until independent retesting appears, "LongCat-2.0 beats GPT-5.5" can only be cited as an official claim and must be labeled as self-reported.
LongCat 2.0
