Updated September 28, 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.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the higher public score, 80.49 versus 45.97, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Apodex 1.1 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
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.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Not enough matched evidence
A complete context comparison is not sourced.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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.
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7
Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 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.
| Category | Apodex 1.1 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 52.4Supported · #50/160 | 80.9Supported · #6/160 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 3 vs 16 public rows | Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads |
| Agentic | 42.5Estimated · #49/111 | 66.1Supported · #10/111 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 11 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 40.3Estimated · #54/136 | 79.6Estimated · #3/136 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 9 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 76.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 79.2#7/27 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 77.7Unranked · 1 rankable row | 83.3Unranked · 7 rankable rows | 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 v5.7) 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.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Apodex 1.1
N/A
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Claude Sonnet 5.5
claude-sonnet-5-5
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 5.5 model documentationA 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
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingApodex 1.1
Not sourced
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
Claude Sonnet 5.5
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 documentationApodex 1.1
Reasoning
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Reasoning
Apodex 1.1
Proprietary
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Proprietary
Apodex 1.1
Proprietary
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Proprietary
Apodex 1.1
2026-08-24
Claude Sonnet 5.5
2026-09-28
Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the higher public score, 80.49 versus 45.97, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 79.6 to 40.3. Apodex 1.1 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 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.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 66.1 to 42.5. 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.
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
APEX-Agents
Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Not directly comparable
DRACO
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench (Zapier 1.0.6)
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Not directly comparable
cursorBench40
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Not directly comparable
Chartography (no tools)
Not directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Not directly comparable
Biomedical image analysis
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Not directly comparable
HLE
Not directly comparable
FrontierScience Research
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
HealthBench (raw)
Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Not directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Not directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Not directly comparable
Protein Design
Not directly comparable
Morphology-to-molecule matching
Not directly comparable
Medicinal chemistry
Not directly comparable
Protein Design library ranking
Not directly comparable
De novo protein-binder design
Not directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Not directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 28, 2026
