Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B vs Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B is the more secure of the two: Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct scores 36.0% 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
Qwen 2.5 72B is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B vs Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct. 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
- Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B 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 Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B is the more secure of the two: Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct scores 36.0% 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 Qwen 2.5 72B vs Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?
Qwen 2.5 72B has a 26.3% ASR and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct has a 36.0% 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 Llama 3.1 405B Instruct 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.