Neither are good, but they wouldn't be nearly as bad as Chernobyl or a nuclear weapon strike.
a) "the way Chernobyl did" is technically correct (the VVER reactor that Zaporizhzhia is uses a difference containment strategy), but a distinction without meaning - a meltdown is a meltdown.
b) "anymore" - Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant was built between 1980 and 1996.
It's true that it is a safer design than Chernobyl, but yes it absolutely can still meltdown.
> The most significant risk is a breach of the reactor chamber fragmenting the fuel rods and spreading radioactive particles around
Note that this "spreading radioactive particles around" is probably more dangerous to health than a meltdown.
Put in different terms: We're basically talking about the equivalent of a dirty bomb.
I'd say that how much radioactive waste gets expelled or leaked and how much energy goes into it makes all the difference in the world and each meltdown is probably unique.