Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Apodex 1.1 Mini

Apodex

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Apodex 1.1 Mini vs Claude Haiku 4.5

Updated August 24, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Anthropic logo
Model B
Claude Haiku 4.5

Anthropic

57.2/100

Estimated · Public rank #87

90% interval 45.7–68.7

Decision reading

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.

0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Apodex 1.1 Mini

    Apodex 1.1 Mini has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Apodex 1.1 Mini has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
0
Apodex 1.1 Mini only
2
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
5
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
Claude Haiku 4.5
73.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
Claude Haiku 4.5
4.9
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Apodex 1.1 Mini
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Claude Haiku 4.5
$0.0035
Fits in one request

Apodex 1.1 Mini has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Apodex 1.1 Mini
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Claude Haiku 4.5
$0.065
Fits in one request

Apodex 1.1 Mini has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Apodex 1.1 Mini
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Haiku 4.5
$0.09
Does not fit in one request

Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Apodex 1.1 Mini has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Apodex 1.1 Mini

No comparable hosted API rate

Apodex 1.1 Mini model card

Claude Haiku 4.5

$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Documented inputs

Apodex 1.1 Mini

Not sourced

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Apodex 1.1 Mini

Not sourced

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

Provider availability

Apodex 1.1 Mini

Not sourced

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Apodex 1.1 Mini

Reasoning

Claude Haiku 4.5

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Apodex 1.1 Mini

Open Weight

Claude Haiku 4.5

Proprietary

License

Apodex 1.1 Mini

Open Weight

Claude Haiku 4.5

Proprietary

Release date

Apodex 1.1 Mini

2026-08-24

Claude Haiku 4.5

2025-10-15

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Apodex 1.1 Mini has the larger documented window (262K).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence7 rows

Agentic

  • APEX-Agents

    Apodex 1.1 Mini27.7%
    Source
    Claude Haiku 4.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    Claude Haiku 4.516.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    Claude Haiku 4.573.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    Claude Haiku 4.576.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • FrontierScience Research

    Apodex 1.1 Mini51.7%
    Source
    Claude Haiku 4.5—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    Claude Haiku 4.55.903%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    Claude Haiku 4.52.083%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Apodex 1.1 Mini or Claude Haiku 4.5?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Apodex 1.1 Mini or Claude Haiku 4.5?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Apodex 1.1 Mini or Claude Haiku 4.5?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Apodex 1.1 Mini or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Apodex 1.1 Mini or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Apodex 1.1 Mini has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 24, 2026

Watch Apodex 1.1 Mini vs Claude Haiku 4.5

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.