Alibaba Qwen3-Max vs Alibaba Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3-Max is the more secure of the two: Qwen3-Max scores 28.0% and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking scores 38.0% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better). One or both scores are estimated from public safety evaluations pending a Guardion benchmark run.
Head-to-Head Overview
Qwen3-Max is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Alibaba Qwen3-Max vs Alibaba Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking. Green marks the safer model on each metric. Only the overall score is available for estimated models.
Overall (ASR)
TAP Attack Method (ASR)
Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)
Zero-Shot (ASR)
Key Highlights
- Alibaba Qwen3-Max has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Alibaba Qwen3-Max or Alibaba Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3-Max is the more secure of the two: Qwen3-Max scores 28.0% and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking scores 38.0% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better). One or both scores are estimated from public safety evaluations pending a Guardion benchmark run.
What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Qwen3-Max vs Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking?
Qwen3-Max has a 28.0% ASR and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking has a 38.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Qwen3-Max and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking 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.