Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs ERNIE 5.1
Model Markets Rankings
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
| Ranking | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | ERNIE 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v1.2 | #16 of 2260.3 score | UnrankedNot in the 22-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #25 of 36$0.198 per LiveBench case | UnrankedNot in the 36-model eligible cohort |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.0 | #17 of 2246.0 score | UnrankedNot in the 22-model eligible cohort |
Ranks come from the current complete eligible cohorts. Green highlights appear only when both models are ranked in the same metric. Missing required inputs remain unranked, and the three dimensions are not collapsed into an overall winner.
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | ERNIE 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Search Arenasearch-2026-08-24-011508720696 · arena_rating · statistical tie | 1,221.23100% of row best · rating · claude-sonnet-4-6-search; 95% CI [1216.39472071, 1226.06821163]; votes 134905; rank 7 | 1,226.96100% of row best · rating · ernie-5.1; 95% CI [1217.24505738, 1236.67203321]; votes 3788; rank 6 |
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,458.0199% of row best · rating · claude-sonnet-4-6; 95% CI [1454.41608210, 1461.60383515]; votes 66343; rank 32 | 1,468.10100% of row best · rating · ernie-5.1; 95% CI [1463.48233336, 1472.72453179]; votes 37137; rank 25 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie | 0 benchmark wins | 1 benchmark winOverall lead |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | ERNIE 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Baidu |
| Family | Claude 4 | Ernie 5 |
| Model | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | ERNIE 5.1 |
| Version | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | ERNIE 5.1 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-08-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 131K |
| 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 | Anthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard) | Baidu Qianfan (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | agents, chat, reasoning, search, tools |
13 comparable fields · 8 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Capabilities
ERNIE 5.1 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs ERNIE 5.1 FAQs
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or ERNIE 5.1 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Sonnet 4.6 and ERNIE 5.1, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or ERNIE 5.1?+
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is $3.00 and ERNIE 5.1 is $4.00 per million tokens, so Claude Sonnet 4.6 is cheaper on this metric. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is $15.00 and ERNIE 5.1 is $18.00 per million tokens, so Claude Sonnet 4.6 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or ERNIE 5.1?+
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Sonnet 4.6 supports 1,000K and ERNIE 5.1 supports 131K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or ERNIE 5.1?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.
Can Claude Sonnet 4.6 or ERNIE 5.1 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is not marked open weight; ERNIE 5.1 is not marked open weight.
Can Claude Sonnet 4.6 and ERNIE 5.1 understand images?+
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is documented with image input; ERNIE 5.1 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or ERNIE 5.1?+
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Sonnet 4.6 supports 128K and ERNIE 5.1 supports 66K output tokens.
Do Claude Sonnet 4.6 and ERNIE 5.1 support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Sonnet 4.6: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. ERNIE 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or ERNIE 5.1?+
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has 2 sourced provider routes; ERNIE 5.1 has 1, so Claude Sonnet 4.6 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or ERNIE 5.1?+
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.