Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B vs Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B

Detailed comparison for LLMs

AlibabaAlibaba

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B is the more secure of the two: Qwen QwQ 32B scores 40.0% and Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

Head-to-Head Overview

Qwen 2.5 72B is the overall winner in this comparison!

Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)

ASR for Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B vs Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B. Green marks the safer model on each metric.

Overall (ASR)

Qwen QwQ 32B
40.0%
Qwen 2.5 72B
26.3%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Qwen QwQ 32B
73.9%
Qwen 2.5 72B
55.2%

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Qwen QwQ 32B
40.9%
Qwen 2.5 72B
23.7%

Zero-Shot (ASR)

Qwen QwQ 32B
5.3%
Qwen 2.5 72B
0.3%

Key Highlights

  • Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower Overall (ASR).
  • Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
  • Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
  • Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).

Security Profile

Outward is better on every axis.

OverallTAPCrescendoZero-Shot
Qwen QwQ 32B
Qwen 2.5 72B
Full security profile
Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B
Full security profile
Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B

Frequently asked questions

Is Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B or Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B more secure?

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B is the more secure of the two: Qwen QwQ 32B scores 40.0% and Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Qwen QwQ 32B vs Qwen 2.5 72B?

Qwen QwQ 32B has a 40.0% ASR and Qwen 2.5 72B has a 26.3% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.

How were Qwen QwQ 32B and Qwen 2.5 72B tested?

Both were red-teamed with the HarmBench framework across zero-shot, TAP (Tree of Attacks with Pruning), and Crescendo multi-turn attacks, scored by Attack Success Rate.

Related Comparisons