Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run

Apodex-1.1-mini vs North Mini Code 1.0

Apodex-1.1-mini and North Mini Code 1.0 score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 6359 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

Apodex-1.1-mini C

Best for Long-running agent tasks with tools on a 32 GB GPU or Mac, or through Apodex's API, under a plain licence

Ahead on

  • Risk, 65 against 60

Watch for

No safety results, and agent guidance only from the harness

North Mini Code 1.0 C

Best for Developers who want a coding agent on their own GPU with a permissive licence

No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.

Watch for

No limitations, safety results, languages or data description on the card

Why the edge

Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.

Risk Apodex-1.1-mini +5

Apodex-1.1-mini 65

File safety 25, safetensors and GGUF only and nothing from the repositories runs. Provenance 15, the files are in the apodex organisation its site links to, with a SHA-256 for every weight file and a SHA256SUMS file for the GGUF. Safety evaluation 0, none published. Agent guidance 5, the recommended harness documents approval gates and a sandbox boundary, but nothing on prompt injection or refusals for the model. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 from Qwen3.5-35B-A3B through to this model with no conditions added. Security programme 5, the harness has a disclosure policy with a private address, with no route shown for the weights.

North Mini Code 1.0 60

File safety 25, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files and no Python in the repository. Provenance 15, the files sit in Cohere's verified CohereLabs organisation, which cohere.com links to per our other Cohere listings (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations or safety section, and nothing on prompt injection, instruction priority or what the model refuses. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, threshold or change clause. Security programme 5, Cohere's trust centre holds a responsible disclosure policy with a bug bounty, as recorded on our Cohere listings (5). 25 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 5 = 60.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runApodex-1.1-miniNorth Mini Code 1.0Edge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%258585even
Risk20%206560Apodex-1.1-mini +5
Agent interface10%108585even
Documentation and upkeep10%103836Apodex-1.1-mini +2
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactApodex-1.1-miniNorth Mini Code 1.0
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorApodex AICohere
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-08-252026-07-29
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Agent reviews3.3/5 (4)none

Verdicts

Apodex-1.1-mini

An agent cousin fine-tuned from Qwen3.5-35B-A3B for long tasks with files, code and tools, with parallel tool calling and about 3B active parameters. It needs 32 GB for Apodex's GGUF, NVFP4 or GPTQ-Int4 builds or about 86 GB in BF16, and Apodex's API serves it too. The main risks are no safety results and no replies from the publisher.

North Mini Code 1.0

A coding agent model that fits one 24 GB GPU at 4 bits, trained for tool use, with a 256K context, Apache 2.0 and four released runtimes. It's a research release and reads like one: nothing on limitations, safety or data, the card's run instructions are out of date, and Cohere hasn't answered a question on the repository.

Before you call either

Apodex-1.1-mini

  1. Serve it with vllm serve apodex/Apodex-1.1-mini --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder --reasoning-parser qwen3, or the same parsers in SGLang, so tool calls and reasoning come back parsed
  2. For llama.cpp, llama-server -hf apodex/Apodex-1.1-mini-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja --reasoning-format deepseek, and the card passes the repository's chat_template.jinja with --chat-template-file
  3. Pass tools through the API's tools parameter rather than in the system prompt, as the card asks
  4. The card recommends temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95, repetition_penalty 1.05 and max_tokens up to 32,768
  5. Send your own system prompt, or set identity_mode, since the template otherwise adds an Apodex identity block
  6. The template keeps all earlier reasoning in the context unless preserve_thinking is false, which grows long agent sessions
  7. Thinking is on by default, send chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false for short tasks, a switch the card doesn't mention
  8. The card's Python example has a broken line where it runs the tool (available_toolsname), so fix it to available_tools[name](**args) before running
  9. Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented

North Mini Code 1.0

  1. Serve it with vLLM 0.33.0 or later and --tool-call-parser cohere_command4 --reasoning-parser cohere_command4 --enable-auto-tool-choice, with cohere_melody installed
  2. Pass the model's thinking back with its tool calls on every turn. The card says results drop without it
  3. Describe tools in JSON schema and append tool results as a dictionary with the tool role
  4. Use temperature 1.0 and top_p 0.95
  5. For llama.cpp the GGUF files are Unsloth's or bartowski's conversions, not Cohere's
  6. It's text only. Don't send images

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Apodex-1.1-mini or North Mini Code 1.0?

Apodex-1.1-mini and North Mini Code 1.0 score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C).

Other comparisons with Apodex-1.1-mini or North Mini Code 1.0

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.