Side-by-side comparison
Gemma 3n 4B vs ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B Thinking
Baidu Qianfan
ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B Thinking
Input / 1M
$0.0700
Output / 1M
$0.2800
| Gemma 3n 4B | ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Baidu Qianfan | |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 32,768 | 131,072 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | text-only | text-only |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.0600 | 0.0700 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.1200 | 0.2800 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Gemma 3n 4B or ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B Thinking?
Gemma 3n 4B is cheaper than ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B Thinking on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.085 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, Gemma 3n 4B or ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B Thinking?
ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B Thinking has the larger context window at 131k tokens versus 33k tokens for Gemma 3n 4B. That means ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B Thinking can ingest about 4.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Gemma 3n 4B and ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B Thinking?
Gemma 3n 4B comes from Google; ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B Thinking comes from Baidu Qianfan. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.