Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Apodex 1.1

Apodex

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Apodex 1.1 vs MiniMax M3

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

MiniMax logo
Model B
MiniMax M3

MiniMax

68.5/100

Supported · Public rank #21

90% interval 63.2–73.8

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

    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.

Shared results
1
Apodex 1.1 only
9
MiniMax M3 only
21
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.

Coding

Directional only
Apodex 1.1
77.7
MiniMax M3
72.2
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not measured
MiniMax M3
72.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 3 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not measured
MiniMax M3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
56.1
MiniMax M3
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not measured
MiniMax M3
85.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not measured
MiniMax M3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not measured
MiniMax M3
64.9
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Apodex 1.1
Not measured
MiniMax M3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
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.

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 M3
$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 M3
$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 M3
$0.03
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.

Context window

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

Apodex 1.1

N/A

MiniMax M3

1M

API model ID

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

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 M3

$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Provider availability

Apodex 1.1

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Apodex 1.1

Reasoning

MiniMax M3

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Apodex 1.1

Proprietary

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

License

Apodex 1.1

Proprietary

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Release date

Apodex 1.1

2026-08-24

MiniMax M3

2026-06-01

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 evidence31 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Apodex 1.170.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Apodex 1.156.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-Agents

    Apodex 1.138.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Apodex 1.192.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M366%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M383.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M370.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M374.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M374.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M376.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M319.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M34.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Apodex 1.170.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Apodex 1.177.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M380.5%
    Source

    MiniMax M3 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M359%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M342.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VIBE V2

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M350.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SVG-Bench

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M363.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • KernelBench Hard

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M328.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M348.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Apodex 1.156.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierScience Research

    Apodex 1.163.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)

    Apodex 1.135.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • IMO 2026

    Apodex 1.131/42
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • USAMO 2026

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M385.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M345.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M391.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M378.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M384.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Apodex 1.1—
    MiniMax M385.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Apodex 1.1 or MiniMax M3?

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 MiniMax M3?

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 MiniMax M3?

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 MiniMax M3?

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 M3?

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 MiniMax M3

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.