Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct vs Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking is the more secure of the two: Llama 3.1 405B Instruct scores 36.0% and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking scores 34.0% 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 Thinking is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct vs Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B 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 VL 235B A22B Thinking has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct or Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking is the more secure of the two: Llama 3.1 405B Instruct scores 36.0% and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking scores 34.0% 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 Llama 3.1 405B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking?
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct has a 36.0% ASR and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking has a 34.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Llama 3.1 405B Instruct and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B 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.