Alibaba Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking vs Mistral Mistral 8x22B
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking is the more secure of the two: Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking scores 30.0% and Mistral 8x22B scores 31.5% 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
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Alibaba Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking vs Mistral Mistral 8x22B. 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 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Mistral Mistral 8x22B has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Alibaba Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking or Mistral Mistral 8x22B more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking is the more secure of the two: Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking scores 30.0% and Mistral 8x22B scores 31.5% 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 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking vs Mistral 8x22B?
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking has a 30.0% ASR and Mistral 8x22B has a 31.5% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking and Mistral 8x22B 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.