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 GLM-5

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

Z.AI logo
Model B
GLM-5

Z.AI

65.5/100

Supported · Public rank #35

90% interval 54.2–76.9

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. GLM-5 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Apodex 1.1 Mini has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • 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
GLM-5 only
36
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
GLM-5
56.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
GLM-5
66.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 3 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
GLM-5
60.8
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
GLM-5
66.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 4 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
GLM-5
56.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 4 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
GLM-5
83.1
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
GLM-5
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not measured
GLM-5
92.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 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
GLM-5
$0.0026
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
GLM-5
$0.0596
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
GLM-5
$0.252
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

GLM-5 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. 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

GLM-5

Not published

Documented inputs

Apodex 1.1 Mini

Not sourced

GLM-5

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Apodex 1.1 Mini

Not sourced

GLM-5

Not sourced

Provider availability

Apodex 1.1 Mini

Not sourced

GLM-5

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Apodex 1.1 Mini

Reasoning

GLM-5

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Apodex 1.1 Mini

Open Weight

GLM-5

Open Weight

License

Apodex 1.1 Mini

Open Weight

GLM-5

Open Weight

Release date

Apodex 1.1 Mini

2026-08-24

GLM-5

2026-03-01

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 evidence38 rows

Agentic

  • APEX-Agents

    Apodex 1.1 Mini27.7%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-556.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-557.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-554.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-565.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-514.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-538%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-531.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Tasks

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-560.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-569.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-543.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-550.99%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-577.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified*

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-572.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-555.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-573.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Rebench

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-562.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-574.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • LongBench v2

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-560.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI-Needle

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-563.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • FrontierScience Research

    Apodex 1.1 Mini51.7%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-586%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-586.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-566.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-585.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Arcee)

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-585.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-550.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-595.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME25 (Arcee)

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-593.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-597.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-596.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-586.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-582.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-516.434%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-52.100%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-583.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NOVA-63

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-555.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Apodex 1.1 Mini—
    GLM-592.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Apodex 1.1 Mini or GLM-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 GLM-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 GLM-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 GLM-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 GLM-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 GLM-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.