Mistral Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 vs Mistral Mistral NeMo Instruct
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Mistral Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 is the more secure of the two: Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 scores 40.0% and Mistral NeMo Instruct scores 50.0% 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
Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Mistral Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 vs Mistral Mistral NeMo Instruct. 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
- Mistral Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Mistral Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 or Mistral Mistral NeMo Instruct more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Mistral Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 is the more secure of the two: Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 scores 40.0% and Mistral NeMo Instruct scores 50.0% 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 Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 vs Mistral NeMo Instruct?
Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 has a 40.0% ASR and Mistral NeMo Instruct has a 50.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 and Mistral NeMo Instruct 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.