Apodex 1.1 released
Apodex · Model release
Source confirmed
Data as of October 9, 2026 · How the score is built
CurrentProprietaryReasoning
Apodex 1.1
Decision readingApodex 1.1 scores 50.6 out of 100 and ranks #90 of 216. This profile shows 10 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #52. No comparable first-party API price is published in the catalog.
Released Aug 24, 2026 — see all recent releases
Apodex 1.1 will be repriced, updated or retired. Get each notice with its source and date. Follow model changes
Decision snapshot
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Capability
50.6/100
field median 52#90 of 216 ranked models
Public
#90of 216
Verified —
Price
API rate not published
input median $0.95No comparable first-party hosted token rate
Speed
Not measured
field median 97 tok/sTime to first token not measured
Context
N/A
field median 256,000Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
Strongest published evidence
Agentic ranks #52. Particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Validate before choosing
10 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. No comparable first-party API token rate is published.
Source-linked · 10 displayable benchmark rows
Follow model changesCategory score record
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #52 of 122Percentile 58thWeight 22%4 benchmarksVerified | 45.4 | 4 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank #59 of 146Percentile 60thWeight 20%2 benchmarksVerified | 42.7 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| KnowledgeRank #59 of 174Percentile 66thWeight 12%3 benchmarksVerified | 53.5 | 3 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| MathWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified | Score pending | 1 benchmark | Verified |
10 of 667 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow much of this is verified
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
- Agentic4/4 verified
- Coding2/2 verified
- ReasoningNot measured
- MultimodalNot measured
- Knowledge3/3 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. FollowingNot measured
- Math1/1 verified
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured
Capability shape
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
Apodex 1.1 category percentile values
- Agentic58th percentile
- Coding60th percentile
- ReasoningNot eligible
- MultimodalNot eligible
- Knowledge66th percentile
- MultilingualNot eligible
- Instruction followingNot eligible
- MathNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#52/122
- Coding#59/146
- ReasoningNot ranked
- MultimodalNot ranked
- Knowledge#59/174
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. FollowingNot ranked
- MathNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible
Benchmark ledger
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
Coding2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | Score70.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap22 behind | WeightScored in Agentic | Provider exact |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score77.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap18.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Agentic4 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | Score70.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap22 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with tools | Score56.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7% | Gap11.6 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| DeepSearchQA | Score92.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 96.0% | Gap3.6 behind | Weight2% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| APEX-Agents | Score38.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Grok 4.6 · 57.5% | Gap19 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Knowledge3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | Score56.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65% | Gap8.9 behind | Weight44% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| FrontierScience Research | Score63.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Apodex 1.1 · 63.3% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)BioMysteryBench Human Difficult | Score35.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.8 Flash · 56.5% | Gap21.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Math1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMO 2026International Mathematical Olympiad 2026 | Score31/42 | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 42/42 | Gap11.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Lineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
full-397b · 397B
Apodex 1.1 MiniRadar
Full release historyApodex 1.1 release history
Radar confirmed these at the source. Use Apodex 1.1 in your work? Explore Radar to follow supported changes and choose your alerts.
Radar
Spec sheet
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
- API model ID
- Not publishedApodex pricing
- Context window
- N/A
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Output modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Parameters
- Not disclosed by the provider
- Availability
- The full Apodex 1.1 model powers Apodex's web workbench. Apodex says bare-model access will roll out through major API platforms, but no public API model ID, token rate, or model weights are available for the full 397B model.
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- Current
- API capabilities
- Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
- Prompt caching
- Not documented in the pricing recordApodex pricing
- Self-host
- Weights are not published
- Rate limits
- Not tracked yet
How to read this profile
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
Apodex 1.1 ranks #90 of 216 on the public leaderboard with a score of 50.64/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.
Apodex 1.1 is a proprietary model with a N/A context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
The full Apodex 1.1 model powers Apodex's web workbench. Apodex says bare-model access will roll out through major API platforms, but no public API model ID, token rate, or model weights are available for the full 397B model.
Official exact-value snapshot from Apodex's August 24, 2026 technical report. The stored APEX-Agents, FrontierScience Research, BioMysteryBench Human Difficult, HLE, and DeepSearchQA rows use the report's Agent Team setting; the corresponding ReAct results are 34.4, 55.0, 23.5, 53.2, and 88.2. The SWE-bench Verified and Terminal-Bench 2.1 table reports one result per model. GDPVal win rate, FrontierFinance, YC-Bench, MathArena IMO 2025 and USAMO 2026, and IMO-ProofBench remain outside the current schema rather than being collapsed into non-equivalent fields. The report identifies a 397B full model but does not publish its context limit, weights, or a bare-model API price, so the row stays unranked.
Apodex 1.1 sits in the Apodex 1.1 family with Apodex 1.1 Mini. 10 of 667 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #52, while its lowest eligible position is Knowledge at #59. particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Last updated October 9, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Questions
How does Apodex 1.1 perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Apodex 1.1 ranks #90 out of 216 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 50.64/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 10 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is Apodex 1.1 good for knowledge and understanding?
Apodex 1.1 ranks #59 out of 174 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 53.5/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Apodex 1.1 good for coding and programming?
Apodex 1.1 ranks #59 out of 146 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 42.7/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Apodex 1.1 good for mathematics?
Apodex 1.1 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Apodex 1.1 good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
Apodex 1.1 ranks #52 out of 122 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 45.4/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Which sibling models are related to Apodex 1.1?
Apodex 1.1 belongs to the Apodex 1.1 family. Related tracked variants include Apodex 1.1 Mini. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.
Does Apodex 1.1 have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. Apodex 1.1 currently has 24 source-displayable rows across 667 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
What is the context window size of Apodex 1.1?
Apodex 1.1 has a reported context window of N/A in the exact-model catalog record. The value stays visible, but the profile marks its source link as unavailable instead of presenting it as directly documented. Maximum output length remains separate because providers often publish a different limit.