ERNIE X1.1 vs Command A
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | ERNIE X1.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Baidu | Cohere |
| Family | Ernie X1 | Command A |
| Model | ERNIE X1.1 | Command A |
| Version | ERNIE X1.1 | Command A |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-09-26 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | 2024-06-01 |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 65,536 | 256,000 |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 111,000,000,000 |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Baidu Qianfan (Standard) | Cohere (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, reasoning, search, tools | agents, chat, citations, multilingual, rag, structured_outputs, tools |
13 comparable fields · 7 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
ERNIE X1.1 Capabilities
Command A Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | ERNIE X1.1Baidu | family variantstext |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs |  Sonar Deep ResearchPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs | Sonar Reasoning ProPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs | Command A VisionCohere | family variantstext |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
| vs | Command ACohere | family variantstext | |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | Command ACohere | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PTBaidu | vs | ERNIE X1.1Baidu | family variantstext |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs | SonarPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs | Sonar ProPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs |  Antigravity AgentGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs | Antigravity AgentGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
ERNIE X1.1 vs Command A FAQs
Is ERNIE X1.1 or Command A better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both ERNIE X1.1 and Command A, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, ERNIE X1.1 or Command A?+
ERNIE X1.1 is $1.00 and Command A is $2.50 per million tokens, so ERNIE X1.1 is cheaper on this metric. ERNIE X1.1 is $4.00 and Command A is $10.00 per million tokens, so ERNIE X1.1 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, ERNIE X1.1 or Command A?+
Command A has the larger sourced context window. ERNIE X1.1 supports 65,536 and Command A supports 256,000.
Which performs better in benchmarks, ERNIE X1.1 or Command A?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can ERNIE X1.1 or Command A be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. ERNIE X1.1 is not marked open weight; Command A is not marked open weight.
Can ERNIE X1.1 and Command A understand images?+
ERNIE X1.1 is not documented with image input; Command A is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, ERNIE X1.1 or Command A?+
ERNIE X1.1 has the larger sourced maximum output: ERNIE X1.1 supports 65,536 and Command A supports 8,000 output tokens.
Do ERNIE X1.1 and Command A support reasoning and tool use?+
ERNIE X1.1: reasoning and tool calling. Command A: tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, ERNIE X1.1 or Command A?+
ERNIE X1.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Command A has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, ERNIE X1.1 or Command A?+
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.