Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct vs NVIDIA Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1
Detailed comparison for LLMs
Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct and NVIDIA Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 are evenly matched at about 40.0% attack success rate (ASR) on Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark. One or both scores are estimated from public safety evaluations pending a Guardion benchmark run.
Head-to-Head Overview
It's a close match between Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct vs NVIDIA Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1. 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
No specific highlights generated for this comparison.
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct or NVIDIA Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 more secure?
Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct and NVIDIA Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 are evenly matched at about 40.0% attack success rate (ASR) on Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark. One or both scores are estimated from public safety evaluations pending a Guardion benchmark run.
What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1?
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct has a 40.0% ASR and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 has a 40.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 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.