Model comparison
ERNIE 5.1 vs Qwen1.5-14B
ERNIE 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Baidu
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. ERNIE 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where ERNIE 5.1 leads 65.1 to 33.6.
- Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Baidu | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.8 | 32.7 |
| Released | — | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 17 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 44.0 (#76), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1488 | 1138 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: —, Qwen1.5-14B: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Search | 1227 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
ERNIE 5.1: 21.9 (#211), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | 1113 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 23.4% | — |
Math ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 40.3 (#92), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1481 | 1125 |
Knowledge ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 41.9 (#102), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1492 | 1094 |
| MMLU | — | 68.6% |
Multilingual ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 55.5 (#29), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1454 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1508 | 1147 |
| LMArena French | 1488 | 1116 |
| LMArena German | 1470 | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1422 | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | 1459 | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | 1085 |
| LMArena Korean | 1427 | — |
Instruction Following ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 76.7 (#37), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1460 | 1102 |
Long Context ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 44.7 (#59), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1462 | 1113 |
Writing & Preference ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 65.1 (#52), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1468 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1441 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1471 | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is ERNIE 5.1 better than Qwen1.5-14B?
ERNIE 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is ERNIE 5.1 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?
ERNIE 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do ERNIE 5.1 and Qwen1.5-14B share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. ERNIE 5.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.