ERNIE 5.1 vs ERNIE X1.1
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | ERNIE 5.1 | ERNIE X1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Baidu | Baidu |
| Family | Ernie 5 | Ernie X1 |
| Model | ERNIE 5.1 | ERNIE X1.1 |
| Version | ERNIE 5.1 | ERNIE X1.1 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2025-09-26 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131,072 | 65,536 |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Baidu Qianfan (Standard) | Baidu Qianfan (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, reasoning, search, tools | agents, chat, reasoning, search, tools |
13 comparable fields · 4 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
ERNIE 5.1 Capabilities
ERNIE X1.1 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  Sonar Deep ResearchPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | Sonar Reasoning ProPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs | Sonar Deep ResearchPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs | Sonar Reasoning ProPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PTBaidu | vs | ERNIE 5.1Baidu | family variantstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  Command ACohere | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PTBaidu | vs | ERNIE X1.1Baidu | family variantstext |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs | Command ACohere | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | SonarPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | Sonar ProPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
ERNIE 5.1 vs ERNIE X1.1 FAQs
Is ERNIE 5.1 or ERNIE X1.1 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both ERNIE 5.1 and ERNIE X1.1, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, ERNIE 5.1 or ERNIE X1.1?+
ERNIE 5.1 is $4.00 and ERNIE X1.1 is $1.00 per million tokens, so ERNIE X1.1 is cheaper on this metric. ERNIE 5.1 is $18.00 and ERNIE X1.1 is $4.00 per million tokens, so ERNIE X1.1 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, ERNIE 5.1 or ERNIE X1.1?+
ERNIE 5.1 has the larger sourced context window. ERNIE 5.1 supports 131,072 and ERNIE X1.1 supports 65,536.
Which performs better in benchmarks, ERNIE 5.1 or ERNIE X1.1?+
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 ERNIE X1.1 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. ERNIE 5.1 is not marked open weight; ERNIE X1.1 is not marked open weight.
Can ERNIE 5.1 and ERNIE X1.1 understand images?+
ERNIE 5.1 is not documented with image input; ERNIE X1.1 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, ERNIE 5.1 or ERNIE X1.1?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. ERNIE 5.1 is 65,536 and ERNIE X1.1 is 65,536.
Do ERNIE 5.1 and ERNIE X1.1 support reasoning and tool use?+
ERNIE 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. ERNIE X1.1: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, ERNIE 5.1 or ERNIE X1.1?+
ERNIE 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; ERNIE X1.1 has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, ERNIE 5.1 or ERNIE X1.1?+
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.