ERNIE 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber

At a Glance

Compare
Gemini 3.8 Flash CyberGoogle DeepMind
Pricing and Limits
Context windowMaximum documented tokens131KNot reported
Model facts checkedAug 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

All benchmark results →
No Protocol-Matched Benchmark Yet.Results appear here only when both models share the same benchmark version, metric, evaluation protocol, and evidence class.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldERNIE 5.1Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber
DeveloperBaiduGoogle DeepMind
FamilyErnie 5Gemini 3
ModelERNIE 5.1Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber
VersionERNIE 5.1Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknown2026-09-02
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesTextText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window131KUnknown
Total parametersUnknownUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownUnknown
Open weightsNoNo
API availableYesNo
Self-hostableNoNo
Provider accessBaidu Qianfan (Standard)Unknown
Capabilitiesagents, chat, reasoning, search, toolsautomated-patching, cybersecurity, reasoning, vulnerability-detection

ERNIE 5.1 Capabilities

agentschatreasoningsearchtools
Serving providers1
Canonical IDbaidu/ernie-5.1

Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber Capabilities

automated-patchingcybersecurityreasoningvulnerability-detection
Serving providers0
Canonical IDgoogle-deepmind/gemini-3.8-flash-cyber

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.

Send Feedback