Apodex 1.1 vs Claude Opus 4.5

Updated October 9, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher public point estimate, 54.03 versus 50.64. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Apodex 1.1

Apodex

50.64/100

Estimated · Public rank #86

Conditional range 36.3–65.0

Model B

Claude Opus 4.5

Anthropic

54.03/100

Supported · Public rank #67

90% interval 41.8–66.3

Shared results: 2
Apodex 1.1 only: 8
Claude Opus 4.5 only: 43
Like-for-like categories: 0 / 8

Estimated: Apodex 1.1 · Supported: Claude Opus 4.5. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

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 Claude Opus 4.5 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 Claude Opus 4.5 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
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Apodex 1.1 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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

42.7Apodex 1.141.3Claude Opus 4.5

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8

Apodex 1.1 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

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.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 25.3
Apodex 1.1:56.1%
Claude Opus 4.5:30.8%
Apodex 1.1 source Claude Opus 4.5 source
SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 3.2
Apodex 1.1:77.7%
Claude Opus 4.5:80.9%
Apodex 1.1 source Claude Opus 4.5 source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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: 45.4; Estimated · #52/122
Claude Opus 4.5: 31.2; Estimated · #84/122
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 15 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Coding

Directional only

Apodex 1.1: 42.7; Estimated · #59/146
Claude Opus 4.5: 41.3; Estimated · #62/146
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 5 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

Apodex 1.1: 53.5; Supported · #59/174
Claude Opus 4.5: 49.4; Estimated · #71/174
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 6 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Apodex 1.1: 76.8; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Claude Opus 4.5: 73.3; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Apodex 1.1: 77.7; Unranked · 1 rankable row
Claude Opus 4.5: 24.5; #47/49
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Apodex 1.1: Not ranked
Claude Opus 4.5: 96.5; #2/16
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Apodex 1.1: Not ranked
Claude Opus 4.5: 30.6; #115/125
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Apodex 1.1: Not ranked
Claude Opus 4.5: 57.9; #6/7
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 4 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Apodex 1.1 and Claude Opus 4.5
Category	Apodex 1.1	Claude Opus 4.5	Basis	Reading
Agentic	45.4Estimated · #52/122	31.2Estimated · #84/122	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 15 public rows	Directional only
Coding	42.7Estimated · #59/146	41.3Estimated · #62/146	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 5 public rows	Directional only
Knowledge	53.5Supported · #59/174	49.4Estimated · #71/174	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 6 public rows	Directional only
Reasoning	76.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows	73.3Unranked · 4 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	77.7Unranked · 1 rankable row	24.5#47/49	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	96.5#2/16	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not ranked	30.6#115/125	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	Not ranked	57.9#6/7	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 4 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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
Claude Opus 4.5: $0.0175; Fits in one request

Apodex 1.1 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
Claude Opus 4.5: $0.325; Fits in one request

Apodex 1.1 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
Claude Opus 4.5: $1.35; Does not fit in one request; Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

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

SpecificationApodex 1.1Claude Opus 4.5

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Apodex 1.1

N/A

Claude Opus 4.5

200K

API model ID

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Claude Opus 4.5

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

No comparable hosted API rate

Apodex pricing

Claude Opus 4.5

Not published

Documented inputs

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Provider availability

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Apodex 1.1

Reasoning

Claude Opus 4.5

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Apodex 1.1

Proprietary

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

License

Apodex 1.1

Proprietary

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Release date

Apodex 1.1

2026-08-24

Claude Opus 4.5

2025-11-01

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: Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher public point estimate, 54.03 versus 50.64. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
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.

Questions

Which is better, Apodex 1.1 or Claude Opus 4.5?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher public point estimate, 54.03 versus 50.64. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

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

Apodex 1.1 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 42.7 to 41.3. Apodex 1.1 and Claude Opus 4.5 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 Claude Opus 4.5?

Apodex 1.1 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 45.4 to 31.2. Apodex 1.1 and Claude Opus 4.5 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 Claude Opus 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 or Claude Opus 4.5?

A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence53 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.1
Apodex 1.170.8%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5—
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Apodex 1.156.1%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5—
Not directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Apodex 1.138.5%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5—
Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Apodex 1.192.4%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.559.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.566.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.566.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.559.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.552.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.570.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.523.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.526.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.543.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.542.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.571.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.576.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.550.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.564.23%
Source
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.532.3%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

Terminal-Bench 2.1
Apodex 1.170.8%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Apodex 1.177.7%
Source
Claude Opus 4.580.9%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
LiveCodeBench v6
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.584.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.557.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.577.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.543.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

LongBench v2
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.564.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
AI-Needle
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.574%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.570.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.574.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.568.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.584.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.545.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
V*
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.567.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

HLE
Apodex 1.156.1%
Source
Claude Opus 4.530.8%
Source
Apodex 1.1 leads this result
FrontierScience Research
Apodex 1.163.3%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5—
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Apodex 1.135.3%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5—
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.587%
Source
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.570.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.589.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.596.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
C-Eval
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.592.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.585.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.556.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.590.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.558%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

IMO 2026
Apodex 1.131/42
Source
Claude Opus 4.5—
Not directly comparable
AIME26
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.595.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.592.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.593.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.585.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.584.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.520.690%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Apodex 1.1—
Claude Opus 4.54.167%
Source
Not directly comparable

53 public results · 2 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch Apodex 1.1 vs Claude Opus 4.5

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

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 9, 2026

Apodex 1.1 vs Claude Opus 4.5

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Reasoning

Multimodal

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, Apodex 1.1 or Claude Opus 4.5?

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

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

Which costs less, Apodex 1.1 or Claude Opus 4.5?

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

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

Related comparisons

Watch Apodex 1.1 vs Claude Opus 4.5