ERNIE 5.1 vs Llama 3.1 8B

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-3.1-8B
DeveloperBaiduMeta
FamilyErnie 5Llama 3 1 8b
ModelERNIE 5.1Llama-3.1-8B
VersionERNIE 5.1Llama-3.1-8B
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknown2024-07-23
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesTextText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window131K131K
Total parametersUnknown8B
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownllama3.1
Open weightsNoYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoYes
Provider accessBaidu Qianfan (Standard)Hugging Face (Standard)
Capabilitiesagents, chat, reasoning, search, toolsgeneration

ERNIE 5.1 Capabilities

agentschatreasoningsearchtools
Serving providers1
Canonical IDbaidu/ernie-5.1

Llama 3.1 8B Capabilities

generation
Serving providers1
Canonical IDmeta-llama/Llama-3.1-8B

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

ERNIE 5.1 vs Llama 3.1 8B FAQs

Is ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 3.1 8B better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both ERNIE 5.1 and Llama 3.1 8B, 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 8B?+

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 8B?+

Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. ERNIE 5.1 is 131K and Llama 3.1 8B is 131K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 3.1 8B?+

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 8B be self-hosted?+

Llama 3.1 8B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. ERNIE 5.1 is not marked open weight; Llama 3.1 8B is open weight.

Can ERNIE 5.1 and Llama 3.1 8B understand images?+

ERNIE 5.1 is not documented with image input; Llama 3.1 8B 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 8B?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. ERNIE 5.1 is 66K and Llama 3.1 8B is —.

Do ERNIE 5.1 and Llama 3.1 8B support reasoning and tool use?+

ERNIE 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. Llama 3.1 8B: none of these features are definitively sourced. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 3.1 8B?+

ERNIE 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Llama 3.1 8B has 1, a tie.

Which offers better value, ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 3.1 8B?+

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