Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Apodex 1.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Apodex 1.1 vs Claude Opus 5
Updated October 9, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Claude Opus 5 has the higher public point estimate, 79.29 versus 50.64. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 6 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 6
- Apodex 1.1 only
- 4
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 71
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Estimated: Apodex 1.1 · Supported: Claude Opus 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
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Apodex 1.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Not enough matched evidence
A complete context comparison is not sourced.
Confidence: limitedChat 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-ratesCache-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-ratesRepository 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.
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 1.171.4Claude Opus 5
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Claude Opus 5 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.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
4 Apodex 1.1 only
6 Shared
71 Claude Opus 5 only
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 18.3Apodex 1.1:77.7%Claude Opus 5:96%HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 8.6Apodex 1.1:56.1%Claude Opus 5:64.7%
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.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Apodex 1.1
- 53.5
- Supported · #59/174
- Claude Opus 5
- 80.3
- Supported · #7/174
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 19 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 5 leads
Agentic
Directional only- Apodex 1.1
- 45.4
- Estimated · #52/122
- Claude Opus 5
- 77.9
- Supported · #3/122
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 20 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Apodex 1.1
- 42.7
- Estimated · #59/146
- Claude Opus 5
- 71.4
- Supported · #7/146
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 18 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- 76.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Claude Opus 5
- 77.3
- #10/28
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- 77.7
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Claude Opus 5
- 88.8
- #2/49
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not ranked
- Claude Opus 5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not ranked
- Claude Opus 5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not ranked
- Claude Opus 5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Apodex 1.1 | Claude Opus 5 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 53.5Supported · #59/174 | 80.3Supported · #7/174 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 19 public rows | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Agentic | 45.4Estimated · #52/122 | 77.9Supported · #3/122 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 20 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 42.7Estimated · #59/146 | 71.4Supported · #7/146 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 18 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 76.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 77.3#10/28 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 77.7Unranked · 1 rankable row | 88.8#2/49 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 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 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 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 5
- $0.45
- Fits in one request
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 5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Apodex 1.1
N/A
Claude Opus 5
API model ID
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Claude Opus 5
claude-opus-5
Anthropic model overviewCached-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 pricingClaude Opus 5
$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingDocumented inputs
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Claude Opus 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewDocumented outputs
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Claude Opus 5
Provider availability
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Claude Opus 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewReasoning profile
Apodex 1.1
Reasoning
Claude Opus 5
Reasoning
Weight access
Apodex 1.1
Proprietary
Claude Opus 5
Proprietary
License
Apodex 1.1
Proprietary
Claude Opus 5
Proprietary
Release date
Apodex 1.1
2026-08-24
Claude Opus 5
2026-07-24
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 5 has the higher public point estimate, 79.29 versus 50.64. Their conditional score ranges do not 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 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the higher public point estimate, 79.29 versus 50.64. Their conditional score ranges do not 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 5?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 71.4 to 42.7. Apodex 1.1 is 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 5?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 77.9 to 45.4. Apodex 1.1 is 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 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 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 evidence81 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Apodex 1.170.8%SourceClaude Opus 5—Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Apodex 1.156.1%SourceClaude Opus 564.7%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
APEX-Agents
Apodex 1.138.5%SourceClaude Opus 5—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Apodex 1.192.4%SourceClaude Opus 595.0%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 542.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 590.8%SourceNot directly comparable
DRACO
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 588.6%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 593.6%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 570.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 585.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Atlas claim coverage
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 589.1%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 523.58%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 593.74%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 511.7%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 594.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 580.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 587.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 573.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 523.5 turnsSourceNot directly comparable
AutomationBench
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 526.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 584.6%SourceNot directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 536%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Apodex 1.170.8%SourceClaude Opus 5—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Apodex 1.177.7%SourceClaude Opus 596%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
Bug Hunt Bench
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 527.0 fixesSourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 579.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 589.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 559.4%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSWE
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 568.8%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 553.4%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 563.6%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 552.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench (episode 1)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 583.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 593.0%SourceNot directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 570.0%SourceNot directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 587.0%SourceNot directly comparable
VulcanBench CII v1
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 596.4%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 589.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 597.0%SourceNot directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 546.6%SourceNot directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 535.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
Chartography (no tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 529.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 583.0%SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 50.366SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 50.821SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 583.4%SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf (tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 585.5%SourceNot directly comparable
OfficeQA
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 578.1%SourceNot directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 566.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
HLE
Apodex 1.156.1%SourceClaude Opus 564.7%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
FrontierScience Research
Apodex 1.163.3%SourceClaude Opus 5—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Apodex 1.135.3%SourceClaude Opus 549.4%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 556.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE-Verified
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 554.4%SourceNot directly comparable
LABBench2
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 584.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench (raw)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 567.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 557.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 559.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 573.4%SourceNot directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 590.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 572.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 560.6%SourceNot directly comparable
ProteinGym Hard
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 547.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Protein Design
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 542.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Organic chemistry V2
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 561.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 561.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 578.4%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 593.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 591.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Instruction following
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 54.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
IMO 2026
Apodex 1.131/42SourceClaude Opus 542/42SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
RiemannBench (no tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 560.0%SourceNot directly comparable
RiemannBench (tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 579.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 590.8%SourceNot directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Opus 591.3%SourceNot directly comparable
81 public results · 6 shared
Watch Apodex 1.1 vs Claude Opus 5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,500+ readers.
Last updated October 9, 2026