BenchLM comparison page: GPT-5.5 vs LongCat-2.0 — a boundary note on "no shared benchmarks, no quality verdict"

One-sentence takeaway

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.

Key content (page highlights)

• 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.

Verification and applicable limits

• 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.