Capability
51.7/100
field median 56.3
#107 of 230 ranked models
Apodex 1.1
Decision reading
Apodex 1.1 scores 51.7 out of 100 and ranks #107 of 230. This profile shows 10 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #40. No comparable first-party API price is published in the catalog.
Released Aug 24, 2026 — see all recent releases
Data as of September 18, 2026 · How the score is built
Apodex 1.1 will be repriced, updated or retired. Get each notice with its source and date. Follow model changes
Share or export
Strongest published evidence
Agentic ranks #40. Particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Validate before choosing
10 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. No comparable first-party API token rate is published.
Decision snapshot
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Price
API rate not published
input median $0.95
No comparable first-party hosted token rate
Speed
Not measured
field median 90 tok/s
Time to first token not measured
Context
N/A
field median 256,000
Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
How much of this is verified
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
- Agentic4/4 verified
- Coding2/2 verified
- ReasoningNot measured
- Knowledge3/3 verified
- Math1/1 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- MultimodalNot measured
- Inst. FollowingNot measured
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured
Category score record
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #40 of 154Percentile 75thWeight 22%4 benchmarksVerified | 53.4 | #40 of 154 | 75th | 22% | 4 benchmarks | Verified |
| CodingRank #47 of 154Percentile 70thWeight 20%2 benchmarksVerified | 52.6 | #47 of 154 | 70th | 20% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| KnowledgeRank #56 of 184Percentile 70thWeight 12%3 benchmarksVerified | 54.7 | #56 of 184 | 70th | 12% | 3 benchmarks | Verified |
| MathWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 1 benchmark | Verified |
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 7% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 12% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
Benchmark ledger
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
Coding2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score77.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap18.3 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1Terminal-Bench 2.1 (provider run) | Score70.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap22 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Agentic4 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1Terminal-Bench 2.1 (provider run) | Score70.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap22 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with tools | Score56.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 64.7% | Gap8.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| APEX-Agents | Score38.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Grok 4.6 · 57.5% | Gap19 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| DeepSearchQA | Score92.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 96.0% | Gap3.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Knowledge3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | Score56.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65% | Gap8.9 behind | WeightWeighted 35% | Provider exact |
| FrontierScience Research | Score63.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Apodex 1.1 · 63.3% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)BioMysteryBench Human Difficult | Score35.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.8 Flash · 56.5% | Gap21.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Math1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMO 2026International Mathematical Olympiad 2026 | Score31/42 | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 42/42 | Gap11.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Capability shape
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
Apodex 1.1 category percentile values
- Agentic75th percentile
- Coding70th percentile
- ReasoningNot eligible
- Knowledge70th percentile
- MathNot eligible
- MultilingualNot eligible
- MultimodalNot eligible
- Instruction followingNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#40/154
- Coding#47/154
- ReasoningNot ranked
- Knowledge#56/184
- MathNot ranked
- MultilingualNot ranked
- MultimodalNot ranked
- Inst. FollowingNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible
Spec sheet
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
- API model ID
- Not publishedApodex pricing
- Context window
- N/A
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Output modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Parameters
- Not disclosed by the provider
- Availability
- The full Apodex 1.1 model powers Apodex's web workbench. Apodex says bare-model access will roll out through major API platforms, but no public API model ID, token rate, or model weights are available for the full 397B model.
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- Current
- API capabilities
- Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
- Prompt caching
- Not documented in the pricing recordApodex pricing
- Self-host
- Weights are not published
- Rate limits
- Not tracked yet
Lineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. A successor's displayed score stays at least 0.1 points above its predecessor; raw benchmark rows do not move. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Aug 24, 2026 · you are here
Apodex 1.1Score 51.7 · Price not listed
full-397b · 397B
How to read this profile
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
Apodex 1.1 ranks #107 of 230 on the public leaderboard with a score of 51.74/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.
Apodex 1.1 is a proprietary model with a N/A context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
The full Apodex 1.1 model powers Apodex's web workbench. Apodex says bare-model access will roll out through major API platforms, but no public API model ID, token rate, or model weights are available for the full 397B model.
Official exact-value snapshot from Apodex's August 24, 2026 technical report. The stored APEX-Agents, FrontierScience Research, BioMysteryBench Human Difficult, HLE, and DeepSearchQA rows use the report's Agent Team setting; the corresponding ReAct results are 34.4, 55.0, 23.5, 53.2, and 88.2. The SWE-bench Verified and Terminal-Bench 2.1 table reports one result per model. GDPVal win rate, FrontierFinance, YC-Bench, MathArena IMO 2025 and USAMO 2026, and IMO-ProofBench remain outside the current schema rather than being collapsed into non-equivalent fields. The report identifies a 397B full model but does not publish its context limit, weights, or a bare-model API price, so the row stays unranked.
Apodex 1.1 sits in the Apodex 1.1 family with Apodex 1.1 Mini. 10 of 446 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #40, while its lowest eligible position is Knowledge at #56. particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Radar
Full release historyApodex 1.1 release history
Apodex 1.1 released
Apodex · Model release
Source confirmed
Radar confirmed these at the source. Use Apodex 1.1 in your work? Explore Radar to follow supported changes and choose your alerts.
Questions
How does Apodex 1.1 perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Apodex 1.1 ranks #107 out of 230 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 51.74/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 10 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is Apodex 1.1 good for knowledge and understanding?
Apodex 1.1 ranks #56 out of 184 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 54.7/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Apodex 1.1 good for coding and programming?
Apodex 1.1 ranks #47 out of 154 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 52.6/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Apodex 1.1 good for mathematics?
Apodex 1.1 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Apodex 1.1 good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
Apodex 1.1 ranks #40 out of 154 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 53.4/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Which sibling models are related to Apodex 1.1?
Apodex 1.1 belongs to the Apodex 1.1 family. Related tracked variants include Apodex 1.1 Mini. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.
Does Apodex 1.1 have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. Apodex 1.1 currently has 24 source-displayable rows across 446 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
What is the context window size of Apodex 1.1?
Apodex 1.1 has a reported context window of N/A in the exact-model catalog record. The value stays visible, but the profile marks its source link as unavailable instead of presenting it as directly documented. Maximum output length remains separate because providers often publish a different limit.
Compare Apodex 1.1 with every tracked model490 comparisons
Last updated September 18, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Watch Apodex 1.1 in the weekly brief
Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.