OpenAI GPT-4.1 vs Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking

Detailed comparison for LLMs

OpenAIAlibaba

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking is the more secure of the two: GPT-4.1 scores 34.9% 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 OpenAI GPT-4.1 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)

GPT-4.1
34.9%
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
34.0%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

GPT-4.1
57.6%
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
100.0%

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

GPT-4.1
44.9%
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
100.0%

Zero-Shot (ASR)

GPT-4.1
2.3%
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
100.0%

Key Highlights

  • Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking has a lower Overall (ASR).
  • OpenAI GPT-4.1 has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
  • OpenAI GPT-4.1 has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
  • OpenAI GPT-4.1 has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).

Security Profile

Outward is better on every axis.

OverallTAPCrescendoZero-Shot
GPT-4.1
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
Full security profile
OpenAI GPT-4.1
Full security profile
Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking

Frequently asked questions

Is OpenAI GPT-4.1 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: GPT-4.1 scores 34.9% 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 GPT-4.1 vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking?

GPT-4.1 has a 34.9% 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 GPT-4.1 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.

Related Comparisons