Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B vs DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking
Detailed comparison for LLMs
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 DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking scores 42.0% 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
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 DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 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 Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
- Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B or DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking 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 DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking scores 42.0% 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 Qwen 2.5 72B vs DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking?
Qwen 2.5 72B has a 26.3% ASR and DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking has a 42.0% 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 DeepSeek-V3.2 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.