Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B vs Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking is the more secure of the two: Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking scores 21.5% 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
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B vs Google Gemini 2.0 Flash 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
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking 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 Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking is the more secure of the two: Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking scores 21.5% 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 Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking?
Qwen 2.5 72B has a 26.3% ASR and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking has a 21.5% 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 Gemini 2.0 Flash 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.