Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Google Gemini 2.0 Flash
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Google Gemini 2.0 Flash is the more secure of the two: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking scores 34.0% and Gemini 2.0 Flash scores 33.6% 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 is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Google Gemini 2.0 Flash. 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 has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Alibaba Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking or Google Gemini 2.0 Flash more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Google Gemini 2.0 Flash is the more secure of the two: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking scores 34.0% and Gemini 2.0 Flash scores 33.6% 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 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Gemini 2.0 Flash?
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking has a 34.0% ASR and Gemini 2.0 Flash has a 33.6% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking and Gemini 2.0 Flash 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.