Zhipu AI GLM-4.5 vs DeepSeek DeepSeek-R1-0528
Detailed comparison for LLMs
Zhipu AI GLM-4.5 and DeepSeek DeepSeek-R1-0528 are evenly matched at about 41.0% attack success rate (ASR) on Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark. One or both scores are estimated from public safety evaluations pending a Guardion benchmark run.
Head-to-Head Overview
It's a close match between GLM-4.5 and DeepSeek-R1-0528!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Zhipu AI GLM-4.5 vs DeepSeek DeepSeek-R1-0528. 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
No specific highlights generated for this comparison.
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Zhipu AI GLM-4.5 or DeepSeek DeepSeek-R1-0528 more secure?
Zhipu AI GLM-4.5 and DeepSeek DeepSeek-R1-0528 are evenly matched at about 41.0% attack success rate (ASR) on Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark. One or both scores are estimated from public safety evaluations pending a Guardion benchmark run.
What is the attack success rate (ASR) of GLM-4.5 vs DeepSeek-R1-0528?
GLM-4.5 has a 41.0% ASR and DeepSeek-R1-0528 has a 41.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were GLM-4.5 and DeepSeek-R1-0528 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.