- Best of AIME-25 (Avg@16) w/ tools 99.6 / Heavy Thinking 100.0 100
- Best of HMMT-25 (Avg@16) w/ tools 93.4 / Heavy Thinking 97.5 97.5
- Best of IMO-AnswerBench (Avg@4) 78.6 / Heavy Thinking 86.8 86.8
- Best of AMO-Bench EN (Avg@16) 61.6 / Heavy Thinking 66.0 66
- Best of BrowseComp (Pass@1) 56.6 / with context management 73.1 73.1
- Best of BrowseComp-zh (Pass@1, 24 answers revised) 69.0 / with context management 77.7 77.7
- RW Search (Pass@1) 79.5
- τ²-Avg (Avg@4): Retail 88.6 / Airline 76.5 / Telecom 99.3 88.2
- τ²-Noise (Avg@4) 67.1
- VitaBench (Avg@4) 29.3
- VitaBench-Noise (Avg@4) 20.5
- Random Complex Tasks (Avg@4) 35.8
- HLE text-only (w/o tools) 25.2
- Best of GPQA-Diamond (Avg@16) 80.5 / Heavy Thinking 85.2 85.2
- LCB (24.08-25.05) (Avg@4) 82.8
- OJBench (Pass@1) 42.2
- OIBench EN (Pass@1) 47.7
- SWE-bench Verified (Avg@5) 70
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 places in the top three on 3 benchmarks.
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
Open weights Flagship
- VITA-Bench 29.3% #3 /18
- BrowseComp-ZH 77.7% #3 /19
- RWSearch 79.5% #2 /7
Where it ranks
Its best score on each benchmark, and where that ranks among every model with a score there. We rank each model once, at its best setting.
Knowledge and language
| Benchmark | Score | Rank | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 25.2% | #93 of 154 | Lab model card |
Math and science
| Benchmark | Score | Rank | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025 | 100% | #8 of 143 | Lab model card | |
| HMMT 2025 | 97.5% | #7 of 54 | Lab model card | |
| IMO-AnswerBench | 86.8% | #9 of 37 | Lab model card | |
| AMO-Bench | 66% | #1 of 4 | Lab model card | |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.2% | #76 of 302 | Lab model card | |
| General365 | 50.8% | #16 of 23 | Official leaderboard |
Coding
| Benchmark | Score | Rank | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench v6 | 82.8% | #27 of 90 | Lab model card | |
| OJBench | 42.2% | #5 of 16 | Lab model card | |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70% | #79 of 155 | Lab model card | |
| OIBench | 47.7% | #1 of 1 | Lab model card |
Agents and tools
| Benchmark | Score | Rank | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BrowseComp-ZH | 77.7% | #3 of 19 | Lab model card | |
| VITA-Bench | 29.3% | #3 of 18 | Official leaderboard | |
| tau2-bench | 88.2% | #18 of 79 | Lab model card | |
| RWSearch | 79.5% | #2 of 7 | Official leaderboard | |
| BrowseComp | 73.1% | #45 of 81 | Lab model card | |
| ClawProBench | 57.5% | #30 of 49 | Official leaderboard | |
| Random Complex Tasks (LongCat) | 35.8% | #1 of 1 | Lab model card | |
| tau2-Noise (LongCat) | 67.1% | #1 of 1 | Lab model card | |
| VitaBench-Noise (LongCat) | 20.5% | #1 of 1 | Lab model card |
Its lab's numbers put it at 147.9, number 107 of 404
The Self-Reported Index fits one score to the 12 capability results Meituan reported for this model, on the scale of the Epoch Capabilities Index. Labs choose which benchmarks to show and how to run them, so read it as the lab's claim, not an independent measurement. The 90% interval runs from 145.3 to 150.6. How we compute it.
- AIME 2025 100
- HMMT 2025 97.5
- tau2-bench 88.2
- IMO-AnswerBench 86.8
- GPQA Diamond 85.2
- LiveCodeBench v6 82.8
- BrowseComp-ZH 77.7
- BrowseComp 73.1
- SWE-bench Verified 70
- OJBench 42.2
- VITA-Bench 29.3
- Humanity's Last Exam 25.2
Its lab's numbers next to 2 leaderboards
Where the benchmark's own leaderboard, or Epoch AI's run, also has this model. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. Every pair.
Its launch post
The benchmarks the lab chose to headline, with the scores it gave.
Its system card
Every result in the longer documents the lab published with it.
Capabilities
- AIME 2025 100
- HMMT 2025 97.5
- IMO-AnswerBench 86.8
- AMO-Bench 66
- BrowseComp 73.1
- BrowseComp-ZH 77.7
- RWSearch 79.5
- tau2-bench 88.2
- VITA-Bench 29.3
- Random Complex Tasks (LongCat) 35.8
- Humanity's Last Exam 25.2
- GPQA Diamond 85.2
- LiveCodeBench v6 82.8
- OJBench 42.2
- OIBench 47.7
- SWE-bench Verified 70