DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking vs Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B is the more secure of the two: DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking scores 42.0% and Qwen QwQ 32B scores 40.0% 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
Qwen QwQ 32B is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking vs Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B. 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 Qwen QwQ 32B has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
- Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking or Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B is the more secure of the two: DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking scores 42.0% and Qwen QwQ 32B scores 40.0% 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 DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking vs Qwen QwQ 32B?
DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking has a 42.0% ASR and Qwen QwQ 32B has a 40.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking and Qwen QwQ 32B 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.