Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B vs Alibaba Qwen 7-72BB

Detailed comparison for LLMs

AlibabaAlibaba

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B is the more secure of the two: Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% and Qwen 7-72BB scores 36.5% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

Head-to-Head Overview

Qwen 2.5 72B is the overall winner in this comparison!

Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)

ASR for Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B vs Alibaba Qwen 7-72BB. Green marks the safer model on each metric.

Overall (ASR)

Qwen 2.5 72B
26.3%
Qwen 7-72BB
36.5%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Qwen 2.5 72B
55.2%
Qwen 7-72BB

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Qwen 2.5 72B
23.7%
Qwen 7-72BB

Zero-Shot (ASR)

Qwen 2.5 72B
0.3%
Qwen 7-72BB
9.5%

Key Highlights

  • Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower Overall (ASR).
  • Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).

Security Profile

Outward is better on every axis.

OverallTAPCrescendoZero-Shot
Qwen 2.5 72B
Qwen 7-72BB
Full security profile
Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B
Full security profile
Alibaba Qwen 7-72BB

Frequently asked questions

Is Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B or Alibaba Qwen 7-72BB more secure?

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B is the more secure of the two: Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% and Qwen 7-72BB scores 36.5% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Qwen 2.5 72B vs Qwen 7-72BB?

Qwen 2.5 72B has a 26.3% ASR and Qwen 7-72BB has a 36.5% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.

How were Qwen 2.5 72B and Qwen 7-72BB 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