ERNIE 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber
At a Glance
| Compare | ERNIE 5.1Baidu | Gemini 3.8 Flash CyberGoogle DeepMind |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 131K | Not reported |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 2, 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
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Baidu | Google DeepMind |
| Family | Ernie 5 | Gemini 3 |
| Model | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber |
| Version | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | Unknown |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | No |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Baidu Qianfan (Standard) | Unknown |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, reasoning, search, tools | automated-patching, cybersecurity, reasoning, vulnerability-detection |
ERNIE 5.1 Capabilities
Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber Capabilities
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
ERNIE 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber FAQs
Is ERNIE 5.1 or Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both ERNIE 5.1 and Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, ERNIE 5.1 or Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber?+
Only ERNIE 5.1 has a directly sourced input price: $4.00 per million tokens. Only ERNIE 5.1 has a directly sourced output price: $18.00 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, ERNIE 5.1 or Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. ERNIE 5.1 is 131K and Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber is —.
Which performs better in benchmarks, ERNIE 5.1 or Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber?+
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 Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. ERNIE 5.1 is not marked open weight; Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber is not marked open weight.
Can ERNIE 5.1 and Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber understand images?+
ERNIE 5.1 is not documented with image input; Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, ERNIE 5.1 or Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. ERNIE 5.1 is 66K and Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber is —.
Do ERNIE 5.1 and Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber support reasoning and tool use?+
ERNIE 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber: reasoning. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, ERNIE 5.1 or Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber?+
ERNIE 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber has 0, so ERNIE 5.1 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, ERNIE 5.1 or Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber?+
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.