Alibaba Qwen3 VL 8B Thinking vs MiniMax MiniMax M1 40K
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, MiniMax MiniMax M1 40K is the more secure of the two: Qwen3 VL 8B Thinking scores 44.0% and MiniMax M1 40K scores 43.5% 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
MiniMax M1 40K is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Alibaba Qwen3 VL 8B Thinking vs MiniMax MiniMax M1 40K. 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
- MiniMax MiniMax M1 40K has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Alibaba Qwen3 VL 8B Thinking or MiniMax MiniMax M1 40K more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, MiniMax MiniMax M1 40K is the more secure of the two: Qwen3 VL 8B Thinking scores 44.0% and MiniMax M1 40K scores 43.5% 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 VL 8B Thinking vs MiniMax M1 40K?
Qwen3 VL 8B Thinking has a 44.0% ASR and MiniMax M1 40K has a 43.5% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Qwen3 VL 8B Thinking and MiniMax M1 40K 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.