We evaluate large language models (LLMs) as language agents playing goal-directed dialogue games in self-play across 30 languages: the 24 official EU languages plus six others. Unlike static or preference-based evaluation, this paradigm is multi-turn, reference-free and programmatically scored, and because the game mechanics are language-agnostic it extends to a new language by localising a fixed set of prompt and word-list files.

Evaluating nine open-weight and commercial LLMs, we find that no open-weight model covers the EU-24 well: in every official language both commercial systems outscore every open-weight model, and the two weakest average below 40 points across the EU-24. The commercial systems stay ahead even in languages with four orders of magnitude less public web text, showing that linguistic parity is achievable, but not from public crawls alone.

A model's home region lifts it without closing the gap: Chinese is the strongest of all 30 languages for two Chinese-developed models, yet the best Chinese score of any model belongs to a US commercial system. Coverage is also not parity of service.

Pooled over models and languages, the median non-English language costs 31% more to run than English, and scores 10% lower.