DeepSeek DeepSeek-R1-0528 vs MiniMax MiniMax M1 80K
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, DeepSeek DeepSeek-R1-0528 is the more secure of the two: DeepSeek-R1-0528 scores 41.0% and MiniMax M1 80K scores 43.0% 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
DeepSeek-R1-0528 is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for DeepSeek DeepSeek-R1-0528 vs MiniMax MiniMax M1 80K. 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
- DeepSeek DeepSeek-R1-0528 has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek DeepSeek-R1-0528 or MiniMax MiniMax M1 80K more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, DeepSeek DeepSeek-R1-0528 is the more secure of the two: DeepSeek-R1-0528 scores 41.0% and MiniMax M1 80K scores 43.0% 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 DeepSeek-R1-0528 vs MiniMax M1 80K?
DeepSeek-R1-0528 has a 41.0% ASR and MiniMax M1 80K has a 43.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were DeepSeek-R1-0528 and MiniMax M1 80K 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.