ERNIE 5.1 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B-A4B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,468.10100% of row best · rating · ernie-5.1; 95% CI [1463.48233336, 1472.72453179]; votes 37137; rank 25 | 1,434.8698% of row best · rating · gemma-4-26b-a4b; 95% CI [1427.26766156, 1442.45594559]; votes 5814; rank 78 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winOverall lead | 0 benchmark wins |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B-A4B |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Baidu | Google DeepMind |
| Family | Ernie 5 | Gemma 4 |
| Model | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B-A4B |
| Version | ERNIE 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B-A4B |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-03-11 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 262K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 26B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 4B |
| License | Unknown | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Baidu Qianfan (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, reasoning, search, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
13 comparable fields · 10 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
ERNIE 5.1 Capabilities
Gemma 4 26B A4B Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | ERNIE 5.1Baidu | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | ERNIE 5.1Baidu | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
ERNIE 5.1 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B FAQs
Is ERNIE 5.1 or Gemma 4 26B A4B better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both ERNIE 5.1 and Gemma 4 26B A4B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, ERNIE 5.1 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?+
ERNIE 5.1 is $4.00 and Gemma 4 26B A4B is $0.070 per million tokens, so Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper on this metric. ERNIE 5.1 is $18.00 and Gemma 4 26B A4B is $0.34 per million tokens, so Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, ERNIE 5.1 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?+
Gemma 4 26B A4B has the larger sourced context window. ERNIE 5.1 supports 131K and Gemma 4 26B A4B supports 262K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, ERNIE 5.1 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?+
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 Gemma 4 26B A4B be self-hosted?+
Gemma 4 26B A4B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. ERNIE 5.1 is not marked open weight; Gemma 4 26B A4B is open weight.
Can ERNIE 5.1 and Gemma 4 26B A4B understand images?+
ERNIE 5.1 is not documented with image input; Gemma 4 26B A4B is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, ERNIE 5.1 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. ERNIE 5.1 is 66K and Gemma 4 26B A4B is —.
Do ERNIE 5.1 and Gemma 4 26B A4B support reasoning and tool use?+
ERNIE 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. Gemma 4 26B A4B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, ERNIE 5.1 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?+
ERNIE 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Gemma 4 26B A4B has 4, so Gemma 4 26B A4B has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, ERNIE 5.1 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?+
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.