ERNIE 5.1 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16
At a Glance
| Compare |  ERNIE 5.1Baidu | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.050Openrouter ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.20Openrouter ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 131K | 262K |
| 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 | NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1,348.4492% of row best · rating · nvidia-nemotron-3-nano-30b-a3b-bf16; 95% CI [1342.98546755, 1353.88978012]; votes 15325; rank 195 |
| 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 | NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Baidu | NVIDIA |
| Family | Ernie 5 | Nvidia Nemotron 3 Nano 30b A3b Bf16 |
| Model | ERNIE 5.1 | NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16 |
| Version | ERNIE 5.1 | NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2025-12-15 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | 2025-11-28 |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 262K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 31.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 3.5B |
| License | Unknown | other |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Baidu Qianfan (Standard) | Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, reasoning, search, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
ERNIE 5.1 Capabilities
NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 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 NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 FAQs
Is ERNIE 5.1 or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both ERNIE 5.1 and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, ERNIE 5.1 or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16?+
ERNIE 5.1 is $4.00 and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is $0.050 per million tokens, so NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is cheaper on this metric. ERNIE 5.1 is $18.00 and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is $0.20 per million tokens, so NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, ERNIE 5.1 or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 has the larger sourced context window. ERNIE 5.1 supports 131K and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 supports 262K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, ERNIE 5.1 or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16?+
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 NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 be self-hosted?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. ERNIE 5.1 is not marked open weight; NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is open weight.
Can ERNIE 5.1 and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 understand images?+
ERNIE 5.1 is not documented with image input; NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, ERNIE 5.1 or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 has the larger sourced maximum output: ERNIE 5.1 supports 66K and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 supports 1,049K output tokens.
Do ERNIE 5.1 and NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 support reasoning and tool use?+
ERNIE 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, ERNIE 5.1 or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16?+
ERNIE 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 has 3, so NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, ERNIE 5.1 or NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B BF16?+
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.