Head-to-head · multimodal vs multimodal

ERNIE 4.5 Pro vs Qwen3 Instruct: which model should you choose?

We compared ERNIE 4.5 Pro and Qwen3 Instruct on price, context window and 12 benchmarks. ERNIE 4.5 Pro has the stronger average benchmark score; Qwen3 Instruct is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis.

Baidu

ERNIE 4.5 Pro

ERNIE 4.5 Pro is a multimodal model from Baidu. It offers a 1,000,000-token context window, costs $13.89 per million input tokens and $65.19 per million output tokens, and averages 80.5 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$13.89 / 1M
Output
$65.19 / 1M
Context
1,000,000
Avg score
80.5
Open weights
No
Full ERNIE 4.5 Pro page
Alibaba Cloud

Qwen3 Instruct

Qwen3 Instruct is a multimodal model from Alibaba Cloud. It offers a 1,000,000-token context window, costs $5.06 per million input tokens and $25.39 per million output tokens, and averages 79.8 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$5.06 / 1M
Output
$25.39 / 1M
Context
1,000,000
Avg score
79.8
Open weights
Yes
Full Qwen3 Instruct page

Specification comparison

SpecERNIE 4.5 ProQwen3 InstructEdge
Input price / 1M$13.89$5.06B
Output price / 1M$65.19$25.39B
Context window1,000,0001,000,000Tie
Max output32,768128,000B
Average score80.579.8A
Arena Elo1414.31419.2B
Open weightsNoYesB

Benchmark comparison

ERNIE 4.5 Pro wins 6, Qwen3 Instruct wins 5, and 1 benchmarks are tied. The table shows the modelled score for each model and the gap.

BenchmarkERNIE 4.5 ProQwen3 InstructGapWinner
MMLU-Pro80.380.30.0Tie
GPQA Diamond74.774.10.6ERNIE 4.5 Pro
SWE-bench Verified66.568.52.0Qwen3 Instruct
HumanEval86.985.11.8ERNIE 4.5 Pro
MATH-50087.286.11.1ERNIE 4.5 Pro
AIME 202576.378.52.2Qwen3 Instruct
LiveCodeBench76.471.15.3ERNIE 4.5 Pro
IFEval86.089.13.1Qwen3 Instruct
TruthfulQA83.179.73.4ERNIE 4.5 Pro
HellaSwag90.287.03.2ERNIE 4.5 Pro
MMMU78.478.70.3Qwen3 Instruct
Arena Elo1414.31419.24.9Qwen3 Instruct

Price analysis

On a blended 3:1 input-to-output basis, ERNIE 4.5 Pro costs about $26.71 per million tokens and Qwen3 Instruct costs about $10.14. Qwen3 Instruct is roughly 62% cheaper than ERNIE 4.5 Pro. At high volume, that gap compounds quickly, so price should carry real weight unless the quality difference is decisive.

Both models list a 1,000,000-token context window. That is enough for long documents, large codebases and multi-step agent traces.

Verdict

Across 12 shared benchmarks, ERNIE 4.5 Pro wins 6, Qwen3 Instruct wins 5, and 1 are tied. On the index average, ERNIE 4.5 Pro leads Qwen3 Instruct by 0.7 points (80.5 versus 79.8).

The price picture favours Qwen3 Instruct. The context picture is effectively a tie. Those two dimensions often matter more than a few benchmark points once a model is good enough for the task.

If you need a single default, start with ERNIE 4.5 Pro for quality-sensitive work and Qwen3 Instruct for high-volume, well-scoped tasks. Run both on a sample of your own traffic before locking in a choice.

Choose ERNIE 4.5 Pro if

  • You want the higher average benchmark score in this index.

Choose Qwen3 Instruct if

  • Unit cost matters and you want the cheaper blended price.
  • You need the larger 128,000-token output limit.
  • You need open weights for self-hosting or fine-tuning.

FAQ

Is ERNIE 4.5 Pro better than Qwen3 Instruct?

On the index average, ERNIE 4.5 Pro leads Qwen3 Instruct by 0.7 points (80.5 versus 79.8). The better choice depends on price, context and your task. ERNIE 4.5 Pro wins 6 benchmarks, Qwen3 Instruct wins 5.

Which is cheaper, ERNIE 4.5 Pro or Qwen3 Instruct?

Qwen3 Instruct is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis at about $10.14 per million tokens, versus $26.71 for ERNIE 4.5 Pro.

Which has the larger context window?

Both models list a 1,000,000-token context window.

Are these models open weights?

ERNIE 4.5 Pro is proprietary; Qwen3 Instruct is open weights.

Which should I choose for production?

If you need a single default, start with ERNIE 4.5 Pro for quality-sensitive work and Qwen3 Instruct for high-volume, well-scoped tasks. Run both on a sample of your own traffic before locking in a choice.

Related comparisons