whatmodel.sh / ERNIE 5.0 (0110)

ERNIE 5.0 (0110)

+ contribute
Update model informationAdd a place to run itAdd a test resultPropose a benchmarkCorrect a benchmark scoreEdit data on GitHub

ERNIE 5.0 (0110) is a closed-weights language model from Baidu, released January 2026.

Catalogue identity notes

Comparison-only. Arena entry 'ernie-5.0-0110' (text). Released 2026-01: Baidu ERNIE blog post naming ERNIE-5.0-0110 (2026-01-15); Baidu news: official ERNIE 5.0 went live 2026-01-22. Baidu publicly named the Arena snapshot ERNIE-5.0-0110 as the non-preview ERNIE 5.0. Qianfan's ernie-5.0 id is not stated to be byte-identical to it, so no API is asserted.

68.4±2.8comparison only: no current run option verifiedfrom 2 benchmark results across 2 sources* thinly tested, treat the rank as provisional

$ how it compares

The LLMs ranked either side of ERNIE 5.0 (0110), out of 1132 with a score, then more from Baidu.

#modelscorewhereRAMreleased
127GPT-5 Chat (Arena 2026-10-02) OpenAI69±3comparison only
128LongCat-Flash-Thinking (560B-A27B) Meituan69±1comparison only2025-09
129ERNIE 5.0 (0110) Baidu68±3comparison only2026-01
130Step 3.5 Flash (196B-A11B) StepFun68±1api $0.15/M +local~118GB2026-02
131DeepSeek V3.2 DeepSeek68±1api $0.29/M +local~110GB2025-12
more from Baidu
68ERNIE 5.1 Baidu73±3comparison only2026-05
93ERNIE 5.0 Preview (1203) Baidu71±3comparison only2025-12
144ERNIE 5.0 Preview (1022) Baidu67±3comparison only2025-11

see all LLMs · find the ones that fit your machine

$ what it's good at

chat & writing▁▁▁▃▅▅▆█▆▆▆▂ #72 of 579 * · 69% of its score · 1 test

Beats GPT-6 Luna, Grok 4.7, GPT-5.2 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Gemma 4 31B, Gemini 2.5 Pro here, though they rank lower overall.

testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
LMArena (text)1446.4 ✎▁▁▁▂▃▃▃▆▆▇█▃ beats 309/379avg 1268▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 69%blunt
vision & documents▁▁▃▃▂▃▅▅▇▇█▃ #107 of 199 * · 27% of its score · 2 tests

Beats DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Qwen3-VL 32B Instruct, GPT-4.1 mini, Qwen3.5 4B here, though they rank lower overall.

testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
CharXiv descriptive questions lab89.0% ✎▂▄▄▅▇▄█▇▇▂▁▂ beats 45/58easy · avg 70%▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 27%typical
CharXiv (reasoning questions) lab67.1% ✎▂▅▃▅▅▆▆▅▆█▆▂ beats 54/100medium · avg 36%—not counted yet: no other model in the same run to compare it with

$ where to run it

No verified API or download recorded yet · add one

$ how the score was worked out · LMArena leaderboard dataset 69%, Baidu - ERNIE 5.0 Technical R… 27%

Each result implies a score on its own, after adjusting for how hard its test is and who ran it. The score is their weighted average, with a small pull toward the middle for thinly tested models. Each test's weight is its counts column above; here it's added up by who ran the tests. How it works

sourceresultsshare of the scorelicence
LMArena leaderboard dataset1▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 69%CC BY 4.0
Baidu - ERNIE 5.0 Technical Report (arXiv:2602.04705v1) · lab-reported1▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 27%CC BY 4.0
prior · pull toward the middle▇ 3%
weighted average= 68.4

not counted (1)

Baidu - ERNIE 5.0 Technical Report (arXiv:2602.04705v1)CharXiv (reasoning questions) [correct]67.1%fewer than three models have this test yet, or this source ran it for this model alone

$ improve this page

Update model informationAdd a place to run itAdd a test resultPropose a benchmarkCorrect a benchmark scoreEdit data on GitHub

Use a short GitHub form or edit the data through a pull request. Every number needs a source; here's which ones we can use.

data updated · sources and licences · json