Agentic
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1 Mini
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 61.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Apodex 1.1 Mini vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Updated August 24, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
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
Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus 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
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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.
2 Apodex 1.1 Mini only
43 Qwen3.6 Plus only
- Shared results
- 0
- Apodex 1.1 Mini only
- 2
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 43
- 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.
Coding
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1 Mini
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 70.3
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1 Mini
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 62.0
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1 Mini
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 57.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1 Mini
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 60.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1 Mini
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 84.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1 Mini
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 79.8
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1 Mini
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 82.3
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Apodex 1.1 Mini | Qwen3.6 Plus | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | 61.6 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 70.3 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 62.0 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 57.1 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 60.5 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | 84.7 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 79.8 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 82.3 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | 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
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Apodex 1.1 Mini has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.6 Plus 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
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Apodex 1.1 Mini has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.6 Plus 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
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Apodex 1.1 Mini has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.6 Plus 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.
SpecificationApodex 1.1 MiniQwen3.6 Plus
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Qwen3.6 Plus
1M
API model ID
Apodex 1.1 Mini
apodex/Apodex-1.1-mini
Apodex 1.1 Mini model cardQwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
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 cardQwen3.6 Plus
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not sourced
Qwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not sourced
Qwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
Provider availability
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Not sourced
Qwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Reasoning
Qwen3.6 Plus
Reasoning
Weight access
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Open Weight
Qwen3.6 Plus
Proprietary
License
Apodex 1.1 Mini
Open Weight
Qwen3.6 Plus
Proprietary
Release date
Apodex 1.1 Mini
2026-08-24
Qwen3.6 Plus
2026-04-02
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
- Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger documented window (1M).
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 evidence45 rows
Agentic
APEX-Agents
Apodex 1.1 Mini27.7%SourceQwen3.6 Plus—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus61.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus58.8%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus57.2%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus70.7%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus44.3%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus41.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus39.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus48.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus74.1%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus74.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus50.60%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus18.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus56.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus73.8%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus87.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus25.56%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
FrontierScience Research
Apodex 1.1 Mini51.7%SourceQwen3.6 Plus—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus90.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus71.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus88.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus94.5%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus93.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus28.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus95.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus96.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus94.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus87.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus83.8%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus26.207%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus8.333%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Multimodal
MMMU
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus86.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus88.0%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus84.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus68.2%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus81.5%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Apodex 1.1 Mini—Qwen3.6 Plus96.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Apodex 1.1 Mini or Qwen3.6 Plus?
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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 24, 2026
Watch Apodex 1.1 Mini vs Qwen3.6 Plus
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.