ERNIE 5.1 vs Hy4 preview
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | ERNIE 5.1 | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Baidu | Tencent |
| Family | Ernie 5 | Hy4 |
| Model | ERNIE 5.1 | Hy4 preview |
| Version | ERNIE 5.1 | Hy4 preview |
| Lifecycle | active | preview |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-08-28 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131,072 | 1,000,000 |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 770,000,000,000 |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 49,000,000,000 |
| License | Unknown | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | No |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Baidu Qianfan (Standard) | Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, reasoning, search, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
13 comparable fields · 11 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
ERNIE 5.1 Capabilities
Hy4 preview Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Hy3Tencent | vs | Hy4 previewTencent | family variantstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
 GPT-5.6 SolOpenAI | vs | Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | vs | Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
| vs | Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
Hy4 previewTencent | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
 Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | vs | Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
| vs | Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
 Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | vs | Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | ERNIE X1.1Baidu | family variantstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
ERNIE 5.1 vs Hy4 preview FAQs
Is ERNIE 5.1 or Hy4 preview better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both ERNIE 5.1 and Hy4 preview, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, ERNIE 5.1 or Hy4 preview?+
ERNIE 5.1 is $4.00 and Hy4 preview is $0.834 per million tokens, so Hy4 preview is cheaper on this metric. ERNIE 5.1 is $18.00 and Hy4 preview is $2.501 per million tokens, so Hy4 preview is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, ERNIE 5.1 or Hy4 preview?+
Hy4 preview has the larger sourced context window. ERNIE 5.1 supports 131,072 and Hy4 preview supports 1,000,000.
Which performs better in benchmarks, ERNIE 5.1 or Hy4 preview?+
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 Hy4 preview be self-hosted?+
Hy4 preview is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. ERNIE 5.1 is not marked open weight; Hy4 preview is open weight.
Can ERNIE 5.1 and Hy4 preview understand images?+
ERNIE 5.1 is not documented with image input; Hy4 preview is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, ERNIE 5.1 or Hy4 preview?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. ERNIE 5.1 is 65,536 and Hy4 preview is —.
Do ERNIE 5.1 and Hy4 preview support reasoning and tool use?+
ERNIE 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. Hy4 preview: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, ERNIE 5.1 or Hy4 preview?+
ERNIE 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Hy4 preview has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, ERNIE 5.1 or Hy4 preview?+
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.