ERNIE 5.1 vs Command A
At a Glance
| Compare |  ERNIE 5.1Baidu |  Command ACohere |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v4.4 | #12 of 5773.5 score · 1/3 sources · single-source provisional · missing LiveBench, ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 24.5–91.2 | #43 of 570.0 score · 1/3 sources · single-source provisional · missing LiveBench, ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 0.0–66.7 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $2.50Cohere ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $10.00Cohere ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 131K | 256K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 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
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-10-15-0ebb411abf00 · arena_rating · leader | 1,467.73100% of row best · rating · ernie-5.1; 95% CI [1463.22136313, 1472.23707800]; votes 39468; rank 34 | 1,330.9491% of row best · rating · command-a-03-2025; 95% CI [1327.49064818, 1334.38717569]; votes 55766; rank 225 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner | 0 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
| Field | ERNIE 5.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Baidu | Cohere |
| Family | Ernie 5 | Command A |
| Model | ERNIE 5.1 | Command A |
| Version | ERNIE 5.1 | Command A |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | 2024-06-01 |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 256K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 111B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Baidu Qianfan (Standard) | Cohere (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, reasoning, search, tools | agents, chat, citations, multilingual, rag, structured_outputs, tools |
ERNIE 5.1 Capabilities
Command A Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  Sonar ProPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  Solar Pro 4Upstage | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PTBaidu | vs | ERNIE 5.1Baidu | family variantstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | ERNIE X1.1Baidu | family variantstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | Command A ReasoningCohere | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  Antigravity AgentGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | Gemma 4 E2BGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  Devstral-2-123B-Instruct-2512Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | SonarPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | Sonar Deep ResearchPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | Sonar Reasoning ProPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
ERNIE 5.1 vs Command A FAQs
Is ERNIE 5.1 or Command A better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both ERNIE 5.1 and Command A, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, ERNIE 5.1 or Command A?+
ERNIE 5.1 is $4.00 and Command A is $2.50 per million tokens, so Command A is cheaper on this metric. ERNIE 5.1 is $18.00 and Command A is $10.00 per million tokens, so Command A is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, ERNIE 5.1 or Command A?+
Command A has the larger sourced context window. ERNIE 5.1 supports 131,072 tokens and Command A supports 256,000 tokens.
Which performs better in benchmarks, ERNIE 5.1 or Command A?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can ERNIE 5.1 or Command A be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: unsupported. ERNIE 5.1 is not marked open weight; Command A is not marked open weight.
Can ERNIE 5.1 and Command A understand images?+
ERNIE 5.1 is not documented with image input; Command A is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, ERNIE 5.1 or Command A?+
ERNIE 5.1 has the larger sourced maximum output. ERNIE 5.1 supports 65,536 tokens and Command A supports 8,000 tokens.
Do ERNIE 5.1 and Command A support reasoning and tool use?+
ERNIE 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. Command A: tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, ERNIE 5.1 or Command A?+
ERNIE 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Command A has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, ERNIE 5.1 or Command A?+
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.