ERNIE X1.1 vs Grok 4.6
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | ERNIE X1.1 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Baidu | xAI |
| Family | Ernie X1 | Grok 4 |
| Model | ERNIE X1.1 | Grok 4.6 |
| Version | ERNIE X1.1 | Grok 4.6 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-09-26 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | 2026-02-01 |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 65,536 | 500,000 |
| 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) | xAI (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, reasoning, search, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
13 comparable fields · 8 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
ERNIE X1.1 Capabilities
Grok 4.6 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
| vs | Grok 4.6xAI | family variantsimage, text | |
ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | ERNIE X1.1Baidu | family variantstext |
 Qwen3.5-35B-A3BQwen | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Ministral-3-14B-Reasoning-2512Mistral AI | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Mistral-Small-4-119B-2603Mistral AI | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs |  Sonar Deep ResearchPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
ERNIE X1.1 vs Grok 4.6 FAQs
Is ERNIE X1.1 or Grok 4.6 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both ERNIE X1.1 and Grok 4.6, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, ERNIE X1.1 or Grok 4.6?+
ERNIE X1.1 is $1.00 and Grok 4.6 is $2.00 per million tokens, so ERNIE X1.1 is cheaper on this metric. ERNIE X1.1 is $4.00 and Grok 4.6 is $6.00 per million tokens, so ERNIE X1.1 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, ERNIE X1.1 or Grok 4.6?+
Grok 4.6 has the larger sourced context window. ERNIE X1.1 supports 65,536 and Grok 4.6 supports 500,000.
Which performs better in benchmarks, ERNIE X1.1 or Grok 4.6?+
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 Grok 4.6 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. ERNIE X1.1 is not marked open weight; Grok 4.6 is not marked open weight.
Can ERNIE X1.1 and Grok 4.6 understand images?+
ERNIE X1.1 is not documented with image input; Grok 4.6 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, ERNIE X1.1 or Grok 4.6?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. ERNIE X1.1 is 65,536 and Grok 4.6 is —.
Do ERNIE X1.1 and Grok 4.6 support reasoning and tool use?+
ERNIE X1.1: reasoning and tool calling. Grok 4.6: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, ERNIE X1.1 or Grok 4.6?+
ERNIE X1.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Grok 4.6 has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, ERNIE X1.1 or Grok 4.6?+
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.