Model comparison
ERNIE 5.1 vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
ERNIE 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Baidu
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where ERNIE 5.1 leads 37.5 to 15.3.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Baidu | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 29.7 |
| Released | — | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 43.4 (#78), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1488 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: —, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Search | 1227 | — |
Reasoning ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 20.9 (#209), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 23.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |
Math ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 37.5 (#96), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1481 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 41.2 (#103), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1491 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 55.7 (#28), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | — |
| LMArena French | 1486 | — |
| LMArena German | 1470 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1422 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1459 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1472 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 76.9 (#35), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1460 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 44.7 (#56), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1462 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 65.3 (#50), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1468 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1471 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is ERNIE 5.1 better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
ERNIE 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is ERNIE 5.1 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
ERNIE 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.4 versus 38.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do ERNIE 5.1 and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. ERNIE 5.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.