Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B vs Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 is the more secure of the two: Qwen QwQ 32B scores 40.0% and Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 scores 4.4% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).
Head-to-Head Overview
Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B vs Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2. 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 v2 has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
- Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Alibaba Qwen QwQ 32B or Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 is the more secure of the two: Qwen QwQ 32B scores 40.0% and Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 scores 4.4% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).
What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Qwen QwQ 32B vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2?
Qwen QwQ 32B has a 40.0% ASR and Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 has a 4.4% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Qwen QwQ 32B and Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 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.