DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking vs Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is the more secure of the two: DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking scores 42.0% and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct 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
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking vs Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B 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 VL 235B A22B Instruct has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking or Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is the more secure of the two: DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking scores 42.0% and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct 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 Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct?
DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking has a 42.0% ASR and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct 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 Qwen3 VL 235B A22B 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.