Model A

Apodex

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Apodex 1.1 vs Kimi K3

Updated August 24, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

Kimi K3

Moonshot AI

80.3/100

Supported · Public rank #5

90% interval 77.8–82.9

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.

3 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
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
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
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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.

7 Apodex 1.1 only

3 Shared

34 Kimi K3 only

Shared results: 3
Apodex 1.1 only: 7
Kimi K3 only: 34
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.

Knowledge

Directional only

Apodex 1.1: 56.1
Kimi K3: 61.0
Weighted basis: 1 vs 2 rows
Reading: Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable

Apodex 1.1: Not measured
Kimi K3: 89.5
Weighted basis: 0 vs 2 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable

Apodex 1.1: 77.7
Kimi K3: Not measured
Weighted basis: 1 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable

Apodex 1.1: Not measured
Kimi K3: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Apodex 1.1: Not measured
Kimi K3: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Apodex 1.1: Not measured
Kimi K3: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Apodex 1.1: Not measured
Kimi K3: 78.5
Weighted basis: 0 vs 3 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Apodex 1.1: Not measured
Kimi K3: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category averages with the server-provided evidence basis for Apodex 1.1 and Kimi K3
Category	Apodex 1.1	Kimi K3	Weighted basis	Reading
Knowledge	56.1	61.0	Directional only1 vs 2 rows	Directional only
Agentic	Not measured	89.5	Not comparable0 vs 2 rows	Not comparable
Coding	77.7	Not measured	Not comparable1 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Reasoning	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Math	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	Not measured	78.5	Not comparable0 vs 3 rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 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.

HLE
Knowledge
Apodex 1.1: 56.1%Kimi K3: 56%Normalized gap 0.1Apodex 1.1 source Kimi K3 source

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
Kimi K3: $0.0105; 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
Kimi K3: $0.195; 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
Kimi K3: $0.27; Fits 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 1.1Kimi K3

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Apodex 1.1

N/A

Kimi K3

1.05M

API model ID

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Kimi K3

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 pricing

Kimi K3

$0.3 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Kimi K3

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Kimi K3

Not sourced

Provider availability

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

Kimi K3

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Apodex 1.1

Reasoning

Kimi K3

Reasoning

Weight access

Apodex 1.1

Proprietary

Kimi K3

Pending

License

Apodex 1.1

Proprietary

Kimi K3

Pending

Release date

Apodex 1.1

2026-08-24

Kimi K3

2026-07-16

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.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence44 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.1
Apodex 1.170.8%
Source
Kimi K3—
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Apodex 1.156.1%
Source
Kimi K3—
Not directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Apodex 1.138.5%
Source
Kimi K337.6%
Source
Apodex 1.1 leads this result
DeepSearchQA
Apodex 1.192.4%
Source
Kimi K395.0%
Source
Kimi K3 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K388.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K391.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K373.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K384.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K330.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K352.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
SpreadsheetBench 2
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K334.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
DECK-Bench
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K373.5%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

Terminal-Bench 2.1
Apodex 1.170.8%
Source
Kimi K3—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Apodex 1.177.7%
Source
Kimi K3—
Not directly comparable
deepSwe
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K367.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K360.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K381.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K377.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K372.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
sweMarathon
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K342%
Source
Not directly comparable
PostTrain Bench
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K336.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K348.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K373.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K357.3%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

HLE
Apodex 1.156.1%
Source
Kimi K356%
Source
Apodex 1.1 leads this result
FrontierScience Research
Apodex 1.163.3%
Source
Kimi K3—
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Apodex 1.135.3%
Source
Kimi K3—
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K393.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K393.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K343.5%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

IMO 2026
Apodex 1.131/42
Source
Kimi K3—
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

OfficeQA Pro
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K363.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K381.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K383.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K384.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K391.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K394.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K397.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K385.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K323.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K341.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
WorldVQA ForceAnswer
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K351.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K391.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Apodex 1.1—
Kimi K358.5%
Source
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Apodex 1.1 or Kimi K3?

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 Kimi K3?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Apodex 1.1 or Kimi K3?

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 Kimi K3?

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 Kimi K3?

A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 24, 2026

Watch Apodex 1.1 vs Kimi K3

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Apodex 1.1 vs Kimi K3

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Knowledge

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Math

Multimodal

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Apodex 1.1 or Kimi K3?

Which is better for coding, Apodex 1.1 or Kimi K3?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Apodex 1.1 or Kimi K3?

Which costs less, Apodex 1.1 or Kimi K3?

Which has the larger context window, Apodex 1.1 or Kimi K3?

Related comparisons

Watch Apodex 1.1 vs Kimi K3