ERNIE 5.1 vs Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct
At a Glance
| Compare |  ERNIE 5.1Baidu | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.10Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.30Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 131K | 10,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 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
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,468.20100% of row best · rating · ernie-5.1; 95% CI [1463.57689002, 1472.81364850]; votes 37058; rank 28 | 1,279.2987% of row best · rating · llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct; 95% CI [1274.57681953, 1284.00026285]; votes 29740; rank 259 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | ERNIE 5.1 | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Baidu | Meta |
| Family | Ernie 5 | Llama 4 Scout 17b 16e Instruct |
| Model | ERNIE 5.1 | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
| Version | ERNIE 5.1 | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2025-04-05 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 10,000K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 108.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 17B |
| License | Unknown | other |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Baidu Qianfan (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, reasoning, search, tools | chat, generation, tools |
ERNIE 5.1 Capabilities
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text 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-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | 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 Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct FAQs
Is ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both ERNIE 5.1 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E 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 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
ERNIE 5.1 is $4.00 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is $0.10 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is cheaper on this metric. ERNIE 5.1 is $18.00 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is $0.30 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has the larger sourced context window. ERNIE 5.1 supports 131K and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct supports 10,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E 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 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct be self-hosted?+
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. ERNIE 5.1 is not marked open weight; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is open weight.
Can ERNIE 5.1 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct understand images?+
ERNIE 5.1 is not documented with image input; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. ERNIE 5.1 is 66K and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is —.
Do ERNIE 5.1 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
ERNIE 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct: tool calling and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
ERNIE 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has 4, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, ERNIE 5.1 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E 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.