Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta vs Apodex 1.1
Wins 4 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents
Wins 1 of 6 areas
Images and charts
Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta is the stronger all-rounder.Apodex 1.1 is better at images and charts.
Scores updated · 15 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta3 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own20Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta2 of 2 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software10Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta1 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta1 of 1 test
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video01Apodex 1.11 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Images and charts and long documents rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta costs 88% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+45.6points ahead
- Research-level physics problemsCritPt+11.1points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+10.5points ahead
Where Apodex 1.1 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+14.9points ahead
- Harder college exam questions with imagesMMMU-Pro+3.8points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 15 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta
- SciCodeAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta by 3.348.845.5+3.3
- Terminal-Bench 2.1tie69.769.7tie
AgentsAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta by 10.535.725.2+10.5
- GDPValAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta by 6.841.434.6+6.8
ReasoningAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta
- CritPtAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta by 11.115.74.6+11.1
- GPQA DiamondAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta by 4.190.586.4+4.1
- Humanity's Last ExamAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta by 3.437.534.1+3.4
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta by 45.667.221.6+45.6
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyApodex 1.1 by 14.916.831.7+14.9
Long documentsAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta
- AA-LCRAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta by 3.78379.3+3.7
Other results4 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta by 11.4-10.5-21.9+11.4
- AA IntelligenceAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta by 8.835.226.4+8.8
- AA Agentic IndexAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta by 7.243.836.6+7.2
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexAgnes 2.5 Pro Beta by 1.562.360.8+1.5
Questions people ask
Which is better, Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta or Apodex 1.1?
Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta wins four of the six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and long documents. Apodex 1.1 wins images and charts. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta. It wins 1 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Apodex 1.1 wins none, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Apodex 1.1 costs $0.30 and $3.00. That makes Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta about 88% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 15 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 11 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 4 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.