LongCat-2.0 vs GLM-5.1
LongCat-2.0 leads general agentic coding at trillion scale; GLM-5.1 specializes in frontend and web-agent scenarios with Arena.ai-verified rankings.
Side-by-Side
| Dimension | LongCat-2.0 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Parameters | 1.6T MoE | 754B MoE |
| Context | 1M | Undisclosed |
| Primary strength | General agentic coding, terminal, SWE | Frontend / Web Agent |
| SWE-bench Pro | 59.5 | 58.4 |
| Code Arena Elo | — | 1530 (#3 global web-agent dev leaderboard) |
| API input pricing | From $0.30/M (promo) | From ~$1.40/M (frontend tiers) |
| Open weights | Yes (open-source release) | Check provider policy |
On SWE-bench Pro — the closest apples-to-apples suite reported for both — LongCat-2.0 leads by ~1.1 points (59.5 vs 58.4). GLM-5.1's differentiation shows more clearly on web-agent leaderboards where UI generation, DOM interaction, and frontend scaffolding dominate.
When to Choose LongCat-2.0
- Backend-heavy agentic coding, DevOps, and terminal automation
- 1M-context monorepo work where frontend is one layer among many
- Open-source deployment with self-hosted inference
- Lower API cost at scale (promo $0.30/M input vs GLM ~$1.40/M+)
When to Choose GLM-5.1
- Web-agent products: generate and iterate on full frontend UIs
- Tasks validated on Arena.ai Code Arena (Elo 1530, global #3 web-agent rank)
- Teams standardized on Zhipu / GLM ecosystem tooling
- Frontend-first coding assistants where SWE-bench Pro gap (~1 point) is acceptable