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 Sonnet 5.5
Updated November 12, 2026. Rank says Claude Sonnet 5.5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the higher public point estimate, 83.07 versus 41.53. Their conditional score ranges do not 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.
- API price per 1M tokens
Apodex 1.1: No comparable API price
Claude Sonnet 5.5: $2 input / $10 output
- Context window
Apodex 1.1: N/A
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 1M
- Released
Apodex 1.1: August 24, 2026
Claude Sonnet 5.5: September 28, 2026
- Shared results
- 2
- Apodex 1.1 only
- 8
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 only
- 62
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Estimated: Apodex 1.1 · Supported: Claude Sonnet 5.5. 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.
33.2Apodex 1.181.0Claude Sonnet 5.5
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Claude Sonnet 5.5 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
Or describe your own job
The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.
Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.
We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
8 Apodex 1.1 only
2 Shared
62 Claude Sonnet 5.5 only
3 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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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, reasoning, multimodal, 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
- 49.6
- Supported · #82/180
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 82.1
- Supported · #6/180
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 17 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads
Agentic
Directional only- Apodex 1.1
- 39.5
- Estimated · #76/135
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 72.7
- Supported · #9/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 19 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Apodex 1.1
- 33.2
- Estimated · #99/162
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 81.0
- Supported · #4/162
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 12 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Directional only- Apodex 1.1
- 36.5
- Estimated · #105/160
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 77.0
- Supported · #6/160
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not ranked
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 78.9
- Estimated · #7/67
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 10 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not ranked
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not ranked
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not ranked
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 89.7
- Unranked · 4 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Apodex 1.1 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 49.6Supported · #82/180 | 82.1Supported · #6/180 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 17 public rows | Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads |
| Agentic | 39.5Estimated · #76/135 | 72.7Supported · #9/135 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 19 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 33.2Estimated · #99/162 | 81.0Supported · #4/162 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 12 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 36.5Estimated · #105/160 | 77.0Supported · #6/160 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 78.9Estimated · #7/67 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 10 public 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 | 89.7Unranked · 4 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, 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 Sonnet 5.5
- $0.007
- 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 Sonnet 5.5
- $0.13
- 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 Sonnet 5.5
- $0.16
- 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 Sonnet 5.5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Apodex 1.1
N/A
Claude Sonnet 5.5
API model ID
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Claude Sonnet 5.5
claude-sonnet-5-5
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 5.5 model documentationCached-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 Sonnet 5.5
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingDocumented inputs
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Documented outputs
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Provider availability
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Generally Available · Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry, Claude Platform on AWS
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 5.5 model documentationReasoning profile
Apodex 1.1
Reasoning
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Reasoning
Weight access
Apodex 1.1
Proprietary
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Proprietary
License
Apodex 1.1
Proprietary
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Proprietary
Release date
Apodex 1.1
2026-08-24
Claude Sonnet 5.5
2026-09-28
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 Sonnet 5.5 has the higher public point estimate, 83.07 versus 41.53. 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 Sonnet 5.5?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the higher public point estimate, 83.07 versus 41.53. 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 Sonnet 5.5?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 81 to 33.2. 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 Sonnet 5.5?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 72.7 to 39.5. 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 Sonnet 5.5?
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 Sonnet 5.5?
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 evidence72 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Apodex 1.170.8%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5—Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Apodex 1.156.1%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.564.5%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
APEX-Agents
Apodex 1.138.5%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Apodex 1.192.4%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.1
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.563.90%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.570.60%SourceNot directly comparable
DRACO
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.587.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.559.9%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.510.0%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.593.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.585.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.568.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.531.6 turnsSourceNot directly comparable
AutomationBench (Zapier 1.0.6)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.544.70%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.577.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Hermes Index
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.553.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Hermes Bench
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.573.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MazeBench
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.58%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.1
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.1 Offline
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.583.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Binary Exploitation Benchmark
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.548SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.583.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Apodex 1.170.8%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Apodex 1.177.7%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.546.2%SourceNot directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.555.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.581.3%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.590.3%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.554.3%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSWE
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.571.0%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.579.7%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.561.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.551.3 fixesSourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 2.0
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.541.0%SourceNot directly comparable
VulcanBench Frontier v4
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.592.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
ExtractBench Pro
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.532%SourceNot directly comparable
ExtractBench (LlamaIndex)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.594.68%SourceNot directly comparable
ParseBench
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.569.21%SourceNot directly comparable
Chartography (no tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.561.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.590.2%SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.50.747SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.50.963SourceNot directly comparable
Biomedical image analysis
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.572.2%SourceNot directly comparable
OfficeQA
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.576.9%SourceNot directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.565.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
HLE
Apodex 1.156.1%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5—Not directly comparable
FrontierScience Research
Apodex 1.163.3%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Apodex 1.135.3%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.544.7%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
HealthBench (raw)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.569.4%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.565.4%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.577.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.569.2%SourceNot directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.589.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.572.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Protein Design
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.551.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Morphology-to-molecule matching
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.525.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Medicinal chemistry
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.565.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Protein Design library ranking
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.554.8%SourceNot directly comparable
De novo protein-binder design
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.582.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.567.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.566.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.556.9%SourceNot directly comparable
PhysicianBench
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.563.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Math
IMO 2026
Apodex 1.131/42SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5—Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (no tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.586.8%SourceNot directly comparable
ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (tools)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.595.2%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.588.772%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Apodex 1.1—Claude Sonnet 5.580.488%SourceNot directly comparable
72 public results · 2 shared
Watch Apodex 1.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 7,000+ subscribers.
Last updated November 12, 2026