Alibaba Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking vs Alibaba Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct is the more secure of the two: Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking scores 38.0% and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct scores 37.0% 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-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Alibaba Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking vs Alibaba Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct. 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-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Alibaba Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking or Alibaba Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct is the more secure of the two: Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking scores 38.0% and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct scores 37.0% 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 32B Thinking vs Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct?
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking has a 38.0% ASR and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct has a 37.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct 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.