Model comparison
ERNIE 5.1 vs Qwen3 14B
ERNIE 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Baidu
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where ERNIE 5.1 leads 43.4 to 36.7.
- Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Baidu | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 35.0 |
| Released | — | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 12 |
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), Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1488 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
| LMArena Search | 1227 | — |
Reasoning ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 20.9 (#209), Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 23.4% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.23 |
Math Too close to call
ERNIE 5.1: 37.5 (#96), Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1481 | — |
Knowledge ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 41.2 (#103), Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1491 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 55.7 (#28), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1460 | — |
Long Context ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 44.7 (#56), Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1462 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 65.3 (#50), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1468 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1471 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is ERNIE 5.1 better than Qwen3 14B?
ERNIE 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is ERNIE 5.1 or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
ERNIE 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.4 versus 36.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do ERNIE 5.1 and Qwen3 14B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. ERNIE 5.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.