Side-by-side comparison
GLM 4.6V vs ERNIE 4.5 VL 28B A3B
Baidu Qianfan
ERNIE 4.5 VL 28B A3B
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
Input / 1M
$0.1400
Output / 1M
$0.5600
| GLM 4.6V | ERNIE 4.5 VL 28B A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai | Baidu Qianfan |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 131,072 | 30,000 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | vision, tools | vision, tools |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.3000 | 0.1400 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.9000 | 0.5600 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6V or ERNIE 4.5 VL 28B A3B?
ERNIE 4.5 VL 28B A3B is cheaper than GLM 4.6V on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.25 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, GLM 4.6V or ERNIE 4.5 VL 28B A3B?
GLM 4.6V has the larger context window at 131k tokens versus 30k tokens for ERNIE 4.5 VL 28B A3B. That means GLM 4.6V can ingest about 4.4x as much text per request.
What is the difference between GLM 4.6V and ERNIE 4.5 VL 28B A3B?
GLM 4.6V comes from Z.ai; ERNIE 4.5 VL 28B A3B 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.