Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
BenchLM
Model A
Apodex 1.1

Apodex

51.7/100

Estimated · Public rank #119

90% interval 40.2–63.2

Apodex 1.1 vs Atria Dawn Preview

Updated September 14, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Atria Dawn Preview

Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Apodex 1.1 and Atria Dawn Preview are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Apodex 1.1 and Atria Dawn Preview are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete context comparison is not sourced.

    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.

Shared results
3
Apodex 1.1 only
7
Atria Dawn Preview only
10
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Directional only
Apodex 1.1
53.3
Estimated · #39/153
Atria Dawn Preview
57.9
Estimated · #31/153
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 11 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Apodex 1.1
52.4
Estimated · #47/152
Atria Dawn Preview
51.6
Estimated · #51/152
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
75.5
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Atria Dawn Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
54.6
Supported · #55/183
Atria Dawn Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not ranked
Atria Dawn Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not ranked
Atria Dawn Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
76.6
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Atria Dawn Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not ranked
Atria Dawn Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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
API rate not published
Fit state unavailable
Atria Dawn Preview
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate. Atria Dawn Preview has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Apodex 1.1
API rate not published
Fit state unavailable
Atria Dawn Preview
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate. Atria Dawn Preview has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Apodex 1.1
API rate not published
Fit state unavailable
Cached-input rate unavailable
Atria Dawn Preview
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate. Atria Dawn Preview 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

No comparable hosted API rate

Apodex pricing

Atria Dawn Preview

No comparable hosted API rate

Atria Dawn Preview model card

Documented inputs

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Atria Dawn Preview

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Atria Dawn Preview

Not sourced

Provider availability

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Atria Dawn Preview

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Apodex 1.1

Reasoning

Atria Dawn Preview

Reasoning

Weight access

Apodex 1.1

Proprietary

Atria Dawn Preview

Open Weight

License

Apodex 1.1

Proprietary

Atria Dawn Preview

Open Weight

Release date

Apodex 1.1

2026-08-24

Atria Dawn Preview

2026-09-14

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
A complete documented context comparison is not available.

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 evidence20 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Apodex 1.170.8%
    Source
    Atria Dawn Preview78.3%
    Source

    Atria Dawn Preview leads this result

  • HLE w/ tools

    Apodex 1.156.1%
    Source
    Atria Dawn Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-Agents

    Apodex 1.138.5%
    Source
    Atria Dawn Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Apodex 1.192.4%
    Source
    Atria Dawn Preview96.0%
    Source

    Atria Dawn Preview leads this result

  • AutomationBench

    Apodex 1.1—
    Atria Dawn Preview53.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BFCL v4

    Apodex 1.1—
    Atria Dawn Preview77.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Apodex 1.1—
    Atria Dawn Preview86.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Apodex 1.1—
    Atria Dawn Preview92.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • skillsBench

    Apodex 1.1—
    Atria Dawn Preview66.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLE-Bench Lite

    Apodex 1.1—
    Atria Dawn Preview86.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Apodex 1.1—
    Atria Dawn Preview81.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Apodex 1.1—
    Atria Dawn Preview41.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Apodex 1.1—
    Atria Dawn Preview50.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Apodex 1.170.8%
    Source
    Atria Dawn Preview78.3%
    Source

    Atria Dawn Preview leads this result

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Apodex 1.177.7%
    Source
    Atria Dawn Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Apodex 1.1—
    Atria Dawn Preview59.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Apodex 1.156.1%
    Source
    Atria Dawn Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierScience Research

    Apodex 1.163.3%
    Source
    Atria Dawn Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)

    Apodex 1.135.3%
    Source
    Atria Dawn Preview—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • IMO 2026

    Apodex 1.131/42
    Source
    Atria Dawn Preview—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Apodex 1.1 or Atria Dawn Preview?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Apodex 1.1 or Atria Dawn Preview?

Apodex 1.1 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 52.4 to 51.6. Apodex 1.1 and Atria Dawn Preview are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Apodex 1.1 or Atria Dawn Preview?

Atria Dawn Preview scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 57.9 to 53.3. Apodex 1.1 and Atria Dawn Preview are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Apodex 1.1 or Atria Dawn Preview?

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 or Atria Dawn Preview?

A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 14, 2026

Watch Apodex 1.1 vs Atria Dawn Preview

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.