Claude Opus 4.5 vs ERNIE 5.1

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#27 of 4655.4 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.9–70.3UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#40 of 44$0.380 per LiveBench caseUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#36 of 3838.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 28.8–45.4UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$5.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026Not reported
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$25.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026Not reported
Context windowMaximum documented tokens200K131K
Model facts checkedSep 3, 2026View model evidence →Aug 29, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5ERNIE 5.1
LMArena Search Arenasearch-2026-08-24-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,179.6496% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-5-search; 95% CI [1174.02872051, 1185.26030035]; votes 61573; rank 191,226.96100% of row best · rating · ernie-5.1; 95% CI [1217.24505738, 1236.67203321]; votes 3788; rank 6
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,447.0899% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-5-20251101-high-32k; 95% CI [1443.17965746, 1450.98398333]; votes 36239; rank 491,468.20100% of row best · rating · ernie-5.1; 95% CI [1463.57689002, 1472.81364850]; votes 37058; rank 28
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above0 benchmark winsNo overall winner2 benchmark winsNo overall winner

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldClaude Opus 4.5ERNIE 5.1
DeveloperAnthropicBaidu
FamilyClaude 4Ernie 5
ModelClaude Opus 4.5ERNIE 5.1
VersionClaude Opus 4.5ERNIE 5.1
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2025-11-24Unknown
Knowledge cutoff2025-05-01Unknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window200K131K
Total parametersUnknownUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownUnknown
Open weightsNoNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoNo
Provider accessAnthropic (Standard)Baidu Qianfan (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, toolsagents, chat, reasoning, search, tools

Claude Opus 4.5 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningstructured outputstools
Serving providers1
Canonical IDanthropic/claude-opus-4-5

ERNIE 5.1 Capabilities

agentschatreasoningsearchtools
Serving providers1
Canonical IDbaidu/ernie-5.1

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Claude Opus 4.5 vs ERNIE 5.1 FAQs

Is Claude Opus 4.5 or ERNIE 5.1 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.5 and ERNIE 5.1, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or ERNIE 5.1?+

Claude Opus 4.5 is $5.00 and ERNIE 5.1 is $4.00 per million tokens, so ERNIE 5.1 is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 4.5 is $25.00 and ERNIE 5.1 is $18.00 per million tokens, so ERNIE 5.1 is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or ERNIE 5.1?+

Claude Opus 4.5 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 4.5 supports 200K and ERNIE 5.1 supports 131K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.5 or ERNIE 5.1?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.

Can Claude Opus 4.5 or ERNIE 5.1 be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Opus 4.5 is not marked open weight; ERNIE 5.1 is not marked open weight.

Can Claude Opus 4.5 and ERNIE 5.1 understand images?+

Claude Opus 4.5 is documented with image input; ERNIE 5.1 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 4.5 or ERNIE 5.1?+

ERNIE 5.1 has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Opus 4.5 supports 64K and ERNIE 5.1 supports 66K output tokens.

Do Claude Opus 4.5 and ERNIE 5.1 support reasoning and tool use?+

Claude Opus 4.5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. ERNIE 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 4.5 or ERNIE 5.1?+

Claude Opus 4.5 has 1 sourced provider route; ERNIE 5.1 has 1, a tie.

Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.5 or ERNIE 5.1?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback