Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B vs ERNIE X1.1
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B | ERNIE X1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Qwen | Baidu |
| Family | Qwen3 8 2 4t A95b | Ernie X1 |
| Model | Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B | ERNIE X1.1 |
| Version | Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B | ERNIE X1.1 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2025-09-26 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 262,144 | 65,536 |
| Total parameters | 2,446,182,725,504 | Unknown |
| Active parameters | 95,000,000,000 | Unknown |
| License | other | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Baidu Qianfan (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | agents, chat, reasoning, search, tools |
13 comparable fields · 9 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B Capabilities
ERNIE X1.1 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
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 |
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs | Qwen3.8-27BQwen | family variantstext | |
| vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | family variantstext | |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE-4.5-0.3B-PTBaidu | vs | ERNIE X1.1Baidu | family variantstext |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs |  Command ACohere | cross-developer peerstext |
| vs | Qwen3.8-FlashQwen | family variantstext | |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs | SonarPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B vs ERNIE X1.1 FAQs
Is Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B or ERNIE X1.1 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B and ERNIE X1.1, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B or ERNIE X1.1?+
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B is $2.00 and ERNIE X1.1 is $1.00 per million tokens, so ERNIE X1.1 is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B is $6.00 and ERNIE X1.1 is $4.00 per million tokens, so ERNIE X1.1 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B or ERNIE X1.1?+
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B has the larger sourced context window. Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B supports 262,144 and ERNIE X1.1 supports 65,536.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B or ERNIE X1.1?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B or ERNIE X1.1 be self-hosted?+
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B is open weight; ERNIE X1.1 is not marked open weight.
Can Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B and ERNIE X1.1 understand images?+
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B is not documented with image input; ERNIE X1.1 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B or ERNIE X1.1?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B is — and ERNIE X1.1 is 65,536.
Do Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B and ERNIE X1.1 support reasoning and tool use?+
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B: reasoning and tool calling. ERNIE X1.1: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B or ERNIE X1.1?+
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B has 2 sourced provider routes; ERNIE X1.1 has 1, so Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B or ERNIE X1.1?+
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.