Compare/LongCat 2.0 vs Apodex 1.1

LongCat 2.0vsApodex 1.1

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

LongCat

LongCat 2.0

Input
$0.75/M
Output
$2.95/M
Speed
45 tok/s
TTFT
2.91s
Apodex

Apodex 1.1

Input
$0.3/M
Output
$3/M
Speed
TTFT

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Apodex 1.1
Faster (tok/s)
LongCat 2.0
Lower Latency
LongCat 2.0
Benchmarks (0-2)
Apodex 1.1

Pricing Comparison

MetricLongCat 2.0Apodex 1.1
Input ($/M tokens)$0.75$0.3
Output ($/M tokens)$2.95$3
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
LongCat 2.0$1.04
Apodex 1.1$0.60

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
LongCat 2.0
45 tok/s
Apodex 1.1
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
LongCat 2.0
2.91s
Apodex 1.1

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Apodex 1.1 takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.

Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, LongCat 2.0 is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). LongCat 2.0 makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. LongCat 2.0 is strongest on Coding Index (45.3), Intelligence Index (34.0). Apodex 1.1 leads on Coding Index (60.8), Intelligence Index (44.0).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. LongCat and Apodex sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: LongCat tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Apodex often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): LongCat 2.0 costs $66.75 ($801/year); Apodex 1.1 costs $54.00 ($648/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): LongCat 2.0 ≈ $9.65/run, Apodex 1.1 ≈ $7.50/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): LongCat 2.0 ≈ $445/run, Apodex 1.1 ≈ $360/run. Apodex 1.1 becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
34.044.0
Coding Index
45.360.8
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
LongCat 2.00 wins
2 winsApodex 1.1

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, LongCat 2.0 or Apodex 1.1?

Apodex 1.1 is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.97/M tokens vs $1.30/M for LongCat 2.0.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Apodex 1.1 wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for LongCat 2.0. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

LongCat 2.0 generates tokens faster at 45 tok/s vs — tok/s. LongCat 2.0 also has lower time-to-first-token (2.91s vs —s).

When should I use LongCat 2.0 vs Apodex 1.1?

Choose based on your priorities: Apodex 1.1 for lower cost, Apodex 1.1 for stronger benchmark performance, and LongCat 2.0 for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.