Apodex 1.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8
Wins 1 of 5 areas
Long documents
Wins 4 of 5 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger all-rounder.Apodex 1.1 is cheaper and better at long documents.
Scores updated · 16 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five 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.
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own04Claude Opus 4.84 of 4 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking03Claude Opus 4.83 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software02Claude Opus 4.82 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up02Claude Opus 4.82 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Apodex 1.11 of 1 test
Long documents rests on a single test.
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.
Apodex 1.1 costs 89% 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 Claude Opus 4.8 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+39.1points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+17.1points ahead
- Research-level physics problemsCritPt+16.3points ahead
Where Apodex 1.1 pulls ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+1.6points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 16 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 4.8
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Opus 4.8 by 14.969.784.6+14.9
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.8 by 8.945.554.4+8.9
AgentsClaude Opus 4.8
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Opus 4.8 by 21.7021.7+21.7
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.8 by 13.134.647.7+13.1
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Opus 4.8 by 925.234.2+9
- AA ApexAgentsClaude Opus 4.8 by 8.231.239.4+8.2
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.8 by 16.34.620.9+16.3
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.8 by 14.634.148.7+14.6
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.8 by 5.686.492+5.6
FactsClaude Opus 4.8
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Opus 4.8 by 39.121.660.7+39.1
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.8 by 17.131.748.8+17.1
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-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.8 by 50.7-21.928.8+50.7
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.8 by 15.426.441.8+15.4
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.8 by 13.560.874.3+13.5
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 4.8 by 636.642.6+6
Questions people ask
Which is better, Apodex 1.1 or Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Opus 4.8 wins four of the five areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and facts. Apodex 1.1 wins long documents, and costs 89% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Apodex 1.1 wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Apodex 1.1 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $3.00 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.8 costs $5.00 and $25.00. That makes Apodex 1.1 about 89% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 16 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 12 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.