Apodex 1.1 vs LongCat-2.0
Wins 4 of 5 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Apodex 1.1 is the stronger all-rounder.LongCat-2.0 is cheaper.
Scores updated · 15 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 own20Apodex 1.12 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20Apodex 1.12 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Apodex 1.12 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Apodex 1.11 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
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.
LongCat-2.0 costs 55% 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 Apodex 1.1 pulls ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+19.5points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+16.2points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+14.3points ahead
Where LongCat-2.0 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+3points 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.
CodingApodex 1.1
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Apodex 1.1 by 19.569.750.2+19.5
- SciCodeApodex 1.1 by 9.245.536.3+9.2
AgentsApodex 1.1
- GDPValApodex 1.1 by 16.234.818.6+16.2
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingApodex 1.1 by 1225.213.2+12
- Terminal-Bench 4.0tie00tie
ReasoningApodex 1.1
- GPQA DiamondApodex 1.1 by 8.486.478+8.4
- CritPtApodex 1.1 by 24.62.6+2
- Humanity's Last Examtie34.133.7tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLongCat-2.0 by 321.624.6+3
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyApodex 1.1 by 2.131.729.6+2.1
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 Agentic IndexApodex 1.1 by 20.736.615.9+20.7
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexApodex 1.1 by 15.560.845.3+15.5
- AA IntelligenceApodex 1.1 by 7.326.419.1+7.3
- AA-OmniscienceApodex 1.1 by 1.5-21.9-23.4+1.5
Questions people ask
Which is better, Apodex 1.1 or LongCat-2.0?
Apodex 1.1 wins four of the five areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and long documents. LongCat-2.0 wins none, but costs 55% less. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Apodex 1.1. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; LongCat-2.0 wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Apodex 1.1 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $3.00 per million output tokens; LongCat-2.0 costs $0.30 and $1.20. That makes LongCat-2.0 about 55% 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.