Objective Is there a tradeoff between democratization and stability? This article investigates this question through a typological analysis of the “third‐wave” countries. Specifically, it addresses two issues. First, are there more countries losing stability than gaining it after democratization? Second, between the “stability losers” and “stability gainers,” which camp has experienced a larger scale of change? Methods This article adopts both data set matching and case knowledge. By matching data sets on democratization (Polity IV) and violence episodes (Major Episodes of Political Violence), as well as by bringing in case knowledge, this study categorizes the third‐wavers into three groups (the stability losers, the gainers, and the no‐changers) and compares their proportion as well as scale of change. Results This study discovers that, among the 108 “third‐wavers,” the ratio of “stability gainers,” “no‐changers,” and “stability losers” is 36:45:27. The scale of change is also bigger among the stability gainers than among the losers. Particularly, the chance of very bloody conflicts is much bigger under authoritarianism than after democratic transition. Conclusion While a level of caution for democratization is healthy, this topological analysis suggests a more balanced view. Democratization can be dangerous. The resistance to it can also be, if not more so.