NVIDIA Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 vs Alibaba Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking is the more secure of the two: Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 scores 40.0% and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking scores 38.0% 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 32B Thinking is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for NVIDIA Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 vs Alibaba Qwen3 VL 32B 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 32B Thinking has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is NVIDIA Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 or Alibaba Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking is the more secure of the two: Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 scores 40.0% and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking scores 38.0% 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 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 vs Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking?
Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 has a 40.0% ASR and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking has a 38.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 and Qwen3 VL 32B 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.