DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 vs DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking is the more secure of the two: DeepSeek VL2 scores 52.0% and DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking scores 42.0% 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-V3.2 Thinking is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 vs DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking. 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-V3.2 Thinking has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 or DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, DeepSeek DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking is the more secure of the two: DeepSeek VL2 scores 52.0% and DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking scores 42.0% 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 VL2 vs DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking?
DeepSeek VL2 has a 52.0% ASR and DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking has a 42.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were DeepSeek VL2 and DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking 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.