Alibaba Qwen 7-72BB vs Meta Llama 4 Maverick

Detailed comparison for LLMs

AlibabaMeta

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 4 Maverick is the more secure of the two: Qwen 7-72BB scores 36.5% and Llama 4 Maverick scores 27.7% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

Head-to-Head Overview

Llama 4 Maverick is the overall winner in this comparison!

Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)

ASR for Alibaba Qwen 7-72BB vs Meta Llama 4 Maverick. Green marks the safer model on each metric.

Overall (ASR)

Qwen 7-72BB
36.5%
Llama 4 Maverick
27.7%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Qwen 7-72BB
Llama 4 Maverick
65.3%

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Qwen 7-72BB
Llama 4 Maverick
14.6%

Zero-Shot (ASR)

Qwen 7-72BB
9.5%
Llama 4 Maverick
3.0%

Key Highlights

  • Meta Llama 4 Maverick has a lower Overall (ASR).
  • Meta Llama 4 Maverick has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).

Security Profile

Outward is better on every axis.

OverallTAPCrescendoZero-Shot
Qwen 7-72BB
Llama 4 Maverick
Full security profile
Alibaba Qwen 7-72BB
Full security profile
Meta Llama 4 Maverick

Frequently asked questions

Is Alibaba Qwen 7-72BB or Meta Llama 4 Maverick more secure?

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 4 Maverick is the more secure of the two: Qwen 7-72BB scores 36.5% and Llama 4 Maverick scores 27.7% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Qwen 7-72BB vs Llama 4 Maverick?

Qwen 7-72BB has a 36.5% ASR and Llama 4 Maverick has a 27.7% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.

How were Qwen 7-72BB and Llama 4 Maverick 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.

Related Comparisons