ERNIE 5.1 vs Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

At a Glance

Compare
Pricing and Limits
Context windowMaximum documented tokens131K131K
Model facts checkedAug 29, 2026View model evidence →Aug 28, 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 5.1Llama-3.1-405B-Instruct
DeveloperBaiduMeta
FamilyErnie 5Llama 3 1 405b Instruct
ModelERNIE 5.1Llama-3.1-405B-Instruct
VersionERNIE 5.1Llama-3.1-405B-Instruct
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknown2024-07-23
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesTextText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window131K131K
Total parametersUnknown405.9B
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownllama3.1
Open weightsNoYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoYes
Provider accessBaidu Qianfan (Standard)Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitiesagents, chat, reasoning, search, toolschat, generation, tools

ERNIE 5.1 Capabilities

agentschatreasoningsearchtools
Serving providers1
Canonical IDbaidu/ernie-5.1

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct Capabilities

chatgenerationtools
Serving providers1
Canonical IDmeta-llama/Llama-3.1-405B-Instruct

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

ERNIE 5.1 vs Llama 3.1 405B Instruct FAQs

Is ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 3.1 405B Instruct better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both ERNIE 5.1 and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?+

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 Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?+

Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. ERNIE 5.1 is 131K and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is 131K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?+

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 Llama 3.1 405B Instruct be self-hosted?+

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. ERNIE 5.1 is not marked open weight; Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is open weight.

Can ERNIE 5.1 and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct understand images?+

ERNIE 5.1 is not documented with image input; Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. ERNIE 5.1 is 66K and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is —.

Do ERNIE 5.1 and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+

ERNIE 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. Llama 3.1 405B Instruct: tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?+

ERNIE 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Llama 3.1 405B Instruct has 1, a tie.

Which offers better value, ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?+

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