ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT vs granite-guardian-4.1-8b
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT | granite-guardian-4.1-8b |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Baidu | IBM |
| Family | Ernie 4 5 0 3b Pt | Granite Guardian 4 1 8b |
| Model | ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT | granite-guardian-4.1-8b |
| Version | ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT | granite-guardian-4.1-8b |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131,072 | 131,072 |
| Total parameters | 360,748,032 | 8,380,551,168 |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Unknown | Unknown |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Unknown | Unknown |
| Capabilities | chat, generation | chat, generation, tools |
13 comparable fields · 6 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT Capabilities
granite-guardian-4.1-8b Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  PII-TracerPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs | family variantstext | ||
ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PTBaidu | vs | ERNIE 5.1Baidu | family variantstext |
ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PTBaidu | vs | ERNIE X1.1Baidu | family variantstext |
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs |  Ministral-3-8B-Reasoning-2512Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Ministral-3-8B-Instruct-2512Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs | Ministral-8B-Instruct-2410Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext | |
PaddleOCR-VL-1.5Baidu | vs | ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PTBaidu | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT vs granite-guardian-4.1-8b FAQs
Is ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT or granite-guardian-4.1-8b better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT and granite-guardian-4.1-8b, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT or granite-guardian-4.1-8b?+
Neither model has a directly sourced input price in this comparison. Neither model has a directly sourced output price in this comparison.
Which has a larger context window, ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT or granite-guardian-4.1-8b?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT is 131,072 and granite-guardian-4.1-8b is 131,072.
Which performs better in benchmarks, ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT or granite-guardian-4.1-8b?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT or granite-guardian-4.1-8b be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT is open weight; granite-guardian-4.1-8b is open weight.
Can ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT and granite-guardian-4.1-8b understand images?+
ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT is not documented with image input; granite-guardian-4.1-8b is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT or granite-guardian-4.1-8b?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT is — and granite-guardian-4.1-8b is —.
Do ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT and granite-guardian-4.1-8b support reasoning and tool use?+
ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT: none of these features are definitively sourced. granite-guardian-4.1-8b: tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT or granite-guardian-4.1-8b?+
ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT has 0 sourced provider routes; granite-guardian-4.1-8b has 0, a tie.
Which offers better value, ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PT or granite-guardian-4.1-8b?+
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.