ERNIE 5.1 vs Seed 2.0 Code
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | ERNIE 5.1 | Seed 2.0 Code |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Baidu | ByteDance Seed |
| Family | Ernie 5 | Seed 2 0 |
| Model | ERNIE 5.1 | Seed 2.0 Code |
| Version | ERNIE 5.1 | Seed 2.0 Code |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-02-14 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | Unknown |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Baidu Qianfan (Standard) | Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, reasoning, search, tools | agents, chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
12 comparable fields · 6 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
ERNIE 5.1 Capabilities
Seed 2.0 Code Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related 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-ProDeepSeek | 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 Seed 2.0 Code FAQs
Is ERNIE 5.1 or Seed 2.0 Code better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both ERNIE 5.1 and Seed 2.0 Code, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, ERNIE 5.1 or Seed 2.0 Code?+
ERNIE 5.1 is $4.00 and Seed 2.0 Code is $0.50 per million tokens, so Seed 2.0 Code is cheaper on this metric. ERNIE 5.1 is $18.00 and Seed 2.0 Code is $3.00 per million tokens, so Seed 2.0 Code is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, ERNIE 5.1 or Seed 2.0 Code?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. ERNIE 5.1 is 131K and Seed 2.0 Code is —.
Which performs better in benchmarks, ERNIE 5.1 or Seed 2.0 Code?+
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 Seed 2.0 Code be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. ERNIE 5.1 is not marked open weight; Seed 2.0 Code is not marked open weight.
Can ERNIE 5.1 and Seed 2.0 Code understand images?+
ERNIE 5.1 is not documented with image input; Seed 2.0 Code is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, ERNIE 5.1 or Seed 2.0 Code?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. ERNIE 5.1 is 66K and Seed 2.0 Code is —.
Do ERNIE 5.1 and Seed 2.0 Code support reasoning and tool use?+
ERNIE 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. Seed 2.0 Code: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, ERNIE 5.1 or Seed 2.0 Code?+
ERNIE 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Seed 2.0 Code has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, ERNIE 5.1 or Seed 2.0 Code?+
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.