Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Cohere Command A
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Cohere Command A is the more secure of the two: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking scores 34.0% and Command A scores 26.0% 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
Command A is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Cohere Command A. 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
- Cohere Command A has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Cohere Command A has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Cohere Command A has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking or Cohere Command A more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Cohere Command A is the more secure of the two: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking scores 34.0% and Command A scores 26.0% 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 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Command A?
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking has a 34.0% ASR and Command A has a 26.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking and Command A 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.