Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B vs Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 is the more secure of the two: Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% and Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 scores 16.0% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).
Head-to-Head Overview
Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B vs Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1. Green marks the safer model on each metric.
Overall (ASR)
TAP Attack Method (ASR)
Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)
Zero-Shot (ASR)
Key Highlights
- Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
- Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B or Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 is the more secure of the two: Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% and Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 scores 16.0% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).
What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Qwen 2.5 72B vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1?
Qwen 2.5 72B has a 26.3% ASR and Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 has a 16.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Qwen 2.5 72B and Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 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.