Coding
Directional only- Apodex 1.1
- 77.7
- DeepSeek V3
- 38.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Apodex 1.1 vs DeepSeek V3
Updated August 24, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
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.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
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. DeepSeek V3 does not fit this workload in one request. Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.
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.
9 Apodex 1.1 only
1 Shared
5 DeepSeek V3 only
- Shared results
- 1
- Apodex 1.1 only
- 9
- DeepSeek V3 only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not measured
- DeepSeek V3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not measured
- DeepSeek V3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- 56.1
- DeepSeek V3
- 72.7
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not measured
- DeepSeek V3
- 1.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not measured
- DeepSeek V3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not measured
- DeepSeek V3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not measured
- DeepSeek V3
- 86.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Apodex 1.1 | DeepSeek V3 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 77.7 | 38.9 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 56.1 | 72.7 | Not comparable1 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 1.7 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 86.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
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 Verified
Coding
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
- DeepSeek V3
- $0.00082
- 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
- DeepSeek V3
- $0.0168
- 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
- DeepSeek V3
- $0.0304
- Does not fit in one request
DeepSeek V3 does not fit this workload in one request. Apodex 1.1 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.
SpecificationApodex 1.1DeepSeek V3
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Apodex 1.1
N/A
DeepSeek V3
128K
API model ID
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
DeepSeek V3
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 pricingDeepSeek V3
$0.07 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Provider availability
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Apodex 1.1
Reasoning
DeepSeek V3
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Apodex 1.1
Proprietary
DeepSeek V3
Open Weight
License
Apodex 1.1
Proprietary
DeepSeek V3
Open Weight
Release date
Apodex 1.1
2026-08-24
DeepSeek V3
2024-12-26
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.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Apodex 1.1
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
DeepSeek V3
API / mo$1,028
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even1.2B/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence15 rows
Agentic
Coding
Knowledge
HLE
Apodex 1.156.1%SourceDeepSeek V3—Not directly comparable
FrontierScience Research
Apodex 1.163.3%SourceDeepSeek V3—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Apodex 1.135.3%SourceDeepSeek V3—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Apodex 1.1—DeepSeek V359.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Apodex 1.1—DeepSeek V375.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Instruction following
IFEval
Apodex 1.1—DeepSeek V386.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Apodex 1.1 or DeepSeek V3?
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 DeepSeek V3?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. 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 DeepSeek V3?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Apodex 1.1 or DeepSeek V3?
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 DeepSeek V3?
A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 24, 2026
Watch Apodex 1.1 vs DeepSeek V3
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.