Alibaba Qwen2 7B Instruct 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: Qwen2 7B Instruct scores 52.0% and Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 scores 16.0% 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
Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Alibaba Qwen2 7B Instruct vs Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1. 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
- 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).
- Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Alibaba Qwen2 7B Instruct 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: Qwen2 7B Instruct scores 52.0% and Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 scores 16.0% 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 Qwen2 7B Instruct vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1?
Qwen2 7B Instruct has a 52.0% 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 Qwen2 7B Instruct 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.