Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Apodex 1.1 vs MiniMax M2.7

Updated October 9, 2026. Rank says Apodex 1.1 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Apodex 1.1

Apodex

50.64/100

Estimated · Public rank #86

Conditional range 36.3–65.0

Model B
MiniMax logo
MiniMax M2.7

MiniMax

47.65/100

Supported · Public rank #101

90% interval 36.7–58.6

Shared results
0
Apodex 1.1 only
10
MiniMax M2.7 only
23
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8
Estimated: Apodex 1.1 · Supported: MiniMax M2.7. 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

  • 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

  • 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: 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. MiniMax M2.7 does not fit this workload in one request. MiniMax M2.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Apodex 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • 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

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 1.135.0MiniMax M2.7

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8

Apodex 1.1 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.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
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.

2 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, 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
53.5
Supported · #59/174
MiniMax M2.7
43.6
Supported · #91/174
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Apodex 1.1 leads · intervals overlap

Agentic

Directional only
Apodex 1.1
45.4
Estimated · #52/122
MiniMax M2.7
29.8
Supported · #85/122
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Apodex 1.1
42.7
Estimated · #59/146
MiniMax M2.7
35.0
Supported · #77/146
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 11 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
76.8
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
MiniMax M2.7
76.1
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
77.7
Unranked · 1 rankable row
MiniMax M2.7
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not ranked
MiniMax M2.7
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not ranked
MiniMax M2.7
91.6
#10/125
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not ranked
MiniMax M2.7
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
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
MiniMax M2.7
$0.0009
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
MiniMax M2.7
$0.0186
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
MiniMax M2.7
$0.078
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

MiniMax M2.7 does not fit this workload in one request. MiniMax M2.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. 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.

Context window

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

Apodex 1.1

N/A

MiniMax M2.7

200K

API model ID

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

MiniMax M2.7

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

MiniMax M2.7

Not published

Documented inputs

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

MiniMax M2.7

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

MiniMax M2.7

Not sourced

Provider availability

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

MiniMax M2.7

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Apodex 1.1

Reasoning

MiniMax M2.7

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Apodex 1.1

Proprietary

MiniMax M2.7

Open Weight

License

Apodex 1.1

Proprietary

MiniMax M2.7

Open Weight

Release date

Apodex 1.1

2026-08-24

MiniMax M2.7

2026-03-18

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
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 MiniMax M2.7?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Apodex 1.1 or MiniMax M2.7?

Apodex 1.1 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 42.7 to 35. 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 MiniMax M2.7?

Apodex 1.1 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 45.4 to 29.8. 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 MiniMax M2.7?

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 MiniMax M2.7?

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 evidence33 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Apodex 1.170.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Apodex 1.156.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-Agents

    Apodex 1.138.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Apodex 1.192.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.757%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.746.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLE-Bench Lite

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.766.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MM-ClawBench

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.762.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.748.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.740.40%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.748.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Apodex 1.170.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Apodex 1.177.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified*

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.775.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.756.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Rebench

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.751.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.776.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Multi-SWE Bench

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.752.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VIBE-Pro

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.755.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.739.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.727.04%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.771.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.779.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.773.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Apodex 1.156.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierScience Research

    Apodex 1.163.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)

    Apodex 1.135.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.787.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Arcee)

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.780.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.786.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.780.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • IMO 2026

    Apodex 1.131/42
    Source
    MiniMax M2.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME25 (Arcee)

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M2.780.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

33 public results · 0 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Apodex 1.1 vs MiniMax M2.7

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

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 9, 2026