Model comparison
ERNIE 5.1 vs Qwen3.5-9B
ERNIE 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 33.3 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 35.3.
- Qwen3.5-9B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3.5-9B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Baidu | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 33.3 |
| Released | — | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 10 |
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), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.3 (#213)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 27.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1488 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: —, Qwen3.5-9B: 14.4 (#143)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 9.2% |
| LMArena Search | 1227 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-9B leads
ERNIE 5.1: 20.9 (#209), Qwen3.5-9B: 22.5 (#178)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 23.4% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | — |
| DTBench | — | 71.2% |
| LMCA | — | 24.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 139.45 |
Math ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 37.5 (#96), Qwen3.5-9B: 33.5 (#174)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 48.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 61.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1481 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads
ERNIE 5.1: 41.2 (#103), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#77)
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 79% |
| LMArena Expert | 1491 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 55.7 (#28), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1460 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 44.7 (#56), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1462 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 65.3 (#50), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1468 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1471 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is ERNIE 5.1 better than Qwen3.5-9B?
ERNIE 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is ERNIE 5.1 or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?
ERNIE 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.4 versus 35.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do ERNIE 5.1 and Qwen3.5-9B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. ERNIE 5.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.