Apodex 1.1 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
Wins 1 of 6 areas
Images and charts
Wins 3 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Facts
Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins more areas, narrowly.Apodex 1.1 is cheaper and better at images and charts.
Scores updated · 17 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.
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own13Claude Sonnet 4.63 of 4 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software02Claude Sonnet 4.62 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up02Claude Sonnet 4.62 of 2 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video10Apodex 1.11 of 1 test
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking11Even1 each · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts00Even0 each · 1 tie
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.
Apodex 1.1 costs 82% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Sonnet 4.6 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+30points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+9.2points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+9.2points ahead
Where Apodex 1.1 pulls ahead
- Harder college exam questions with imagesMMMU-Pro+5.9points ahead
- Long professional tasks in banking, consulting and lawAA ApexAgents+3.2points ahead
- Research-level physics problemsCritPt+1.5points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 17 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6
- SciCodeClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 4.645.550.1+4.6
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Sonnet 4.6 by 1.569.771.2+1.5
AgentsClaude Sonnet 4.6
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 9.225.234.4+9.2
- AA ApexAgentsApodex 1.1 by 3.231.228+3.2
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Sonnet 4.6 by 303+3
- GDPValClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 234.636.6+2
ReasoningEven
- CritPtApodex 1.1 by 1.54.63.1+1.5
- GPQA DiamondClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 1.186.487.5+1.1
- Humanity's Last Examtie34.133.6tie
FactsClaude Sonnet 4.6
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 3021.651.6+30
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 9.231.740.9+9.2
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 Sonnet 4.6 by 34.1-21.912.2+34.1
- AA IntelligenceClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 3.726.430.1+3.7
- AA Agentic IndexApodex 1.1 by 3.536.633.1+3.5
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 2.260.863+2.2
Questions people ask
Which is better, Apodex 1.1 or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins three of the six areas where both have results: coding, agents and facts. Apodex 1.1 wins images and charts, and costs 82% less. They are level on reasoning and long documents.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.6. 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 Sonnet 4.6 costs $3.00 and $15.00. That makes Apodex 1.1 about 82% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 17 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 13 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.