Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Dots3-note Preview is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Apodex 1.1 vs dots3-note Preview
Updated October 9, 2026. Rank says dots3-note Preview 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
dots3-note Preview has the higher public point estimate, 63.3 versus 50.64. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 7 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 7
- Apodex 1.1 only
- 3
- dots3-note Preview only
- 24
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Apodex 1.1 and dots3-note Preview. 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 and dots3-note Preview are 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 1.1—dots3-note Preview
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
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.
3 Apodex 1.1 only
7 Shared
24 dots3-note Preview only
1 category rests 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.
HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 3.5Apodex 1.1:56.1%dots3-note Preview:52.6%SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 0.7Apodex 1.1:77.7%dots3-note Preview:78.4%
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
- dots3-note Preview
- 57.7
- Estimated · #30/122
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 9 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- 42.7
- Estimated · #59/146
- dots3-note Preview
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- 76.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- dots3-note Preview
- 72.9
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- 77.7
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- dots3-note Preview
- 67.2
- Unranked · 10 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- 53.5
- Supported · #59/174
- dots3-note Preview
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not ranked
- dots3-note Preview
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not ranked
- dots3-note Preview
- 84.5
- #39/125
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Apodex 1.1
- Not ranked
- dots3-note Preview
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Apodex 1.1 | dots3-note Preview | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 45.4Estimated · #52/122 | 57.7Estimated · #30/122 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 9 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 42.7Estimated · #59/146 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 7 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 76.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 72.9Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 77.7Unranked · 1 rankable row | 67.2Unranked · 10 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 53.5Supported · #59/174 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 84.5#39/125 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 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
- dots3-note Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate. dots3-note Preview 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
- dots3-note Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate. dots3-note Preview 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
- dots3-note Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate. dots3-note Preview 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 1.1dots3-note Preview
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Apodex 1.1
N/A
dots3-note Preview
API model ID
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
dots3-note Preview
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 pricingdots3-note Preview
No comparable hosted API rate
dots3-note Preview model cardDocumented inputs
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
dots3-note Preview
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
dots3-note Preview
Not sourced
Provider availability
Apodex 1.1
Not sourced
dots3-note Preview
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Apodex 1.1
Reasoning
dots3-note Preview
Reasoning
Weight access
Apodex 1.1
Proprietary
dots3-note Preview
Open Weight
License
Apodex 1.1
Proprietary
dots3-note Preview
Open Weight
Release date
Apodex 1.1
2026-08-24
dots3-note Preview
2026-08-14
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
- dots3-note Preview has the higher public point estimate, 63.3 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 dots3-note Preview?
dots3-note Preview has the higher public point estimate, 63.3 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 dots3-note Preview?
Dots3-note Preview is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Apodex 1.1 or dots3-note Preview?
dots3-note Preview scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 57.7 to 45.4. Apodex 1.1 and dots3-note Preview 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 dots3-note Preview?
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 dots3-note Preview?
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 evidence34 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Apodex 1.170.8%Sourcedots3-note Preview75.1%Sourcedots3-note Preview leads this result
HLE w/ tools
Apodex 1.156.1%Sourcedots3-note Preview52.6%SourceApodex 1.1 leads this result
APEX-Agents
Apodex 1.138.5%Sourcedots3-note Preview30.8%SourceApodex 1.1 leads this result
DeepSearchQA
Apodex 1.192.4%Sourcedots3-note Preview92.1%SourceApodex 1.1 leads this result
Claw-Eval
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview73.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview55.6%SourceNot directly comparable
skillsBench
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview52.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview83.3%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview78.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Apodex 1.170.8%Sourcedots3-note Preview75.1%Sourcedots3-note Preview leads this result
SWE-bench Verified
Apodex 1.177.7%Sourcedots3-note Preview78.4%Sourcedots3-note Preview leads this result
Codeforces
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview3056.0SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview91.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview75.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview61%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview49.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
ARC-AGI-2
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview81.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
SimpleVQA
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview72.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview79.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview87.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview19.0%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview83.1%SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview60.7%SourceNot directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview53.4%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview50.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MMVU
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview79.9%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Apodex 1.1—dots3-note Preview86.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Instruction following
Math
34 public results · 7 shared
Watch Apodex 1.1 vs dots3-note Preview
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