Apodex 1.1 vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: Apodex 1.1 by Apodex or LongCat 2.0 by LongCat? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Apodex 1.1 scores 7.3 points higher (26.4 vs 19.1) but costs 1.7× as much to run the benchmark ($939 vs $545; both premium class). Pick Apodex 1.1 when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise LongCat 2.0.
| Metric | Apodex 1.1 | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 26.4 | 19.1 | −27.7% LongCat 2.0 is 27.7% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $939.06 | $544.74 | −42.0% LongCat 2.0 is 42.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 35.51s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $3.00 | $0.75 / $2.95 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
LongCat 2.0 vs Apodex 1.1: 27.7% less intelligence, 42.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Apodex 1.1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
Apodex 1.1LongCat 2.0Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/apodex-1-1/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/apodex-1-1/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill