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