Amazon Nova Pro vs Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5

Detailed comparison for LLMs

AmazonAnthropic

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 is the more secure of the two: Nova Pro scores 24.0% and Claude Haiku 4.5 scores 5.2% 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 Haiku 4.5 is the overall winner in this comparison!

Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)

ASR for Amazon Nova Pro vs Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5. Green marks the safer model on each metric. Only the overall score is available for estimated models.

Overall (ASR)

Nova Pro
24.0%
Claude Haiku 4.5
5.2%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Nova Pro
100.0%
Claude Haiku 4.5
100.0%

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Nova Pro
100.0%
Claude Haiku 4.5
100.0%

Zero-Shot (ASR)

Nova Pro
100.0%
Claude Haiku 4.5
100.0%

Key Highlights

  • Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 has a lower Overall (ASR).

Security Profile

Outward is better on every axis.

OverallTAPCrescendoZero-Shot
Nova Pro
Claude Haiku 4.5
Full security profile
Amazon Nova Pro
Full security profile
Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5

Frequently asked questions

Is Amazon Nova Pro or Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 more secure?

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 is the more secure of the two: Nova Pro scores 24.0% and Claude Haiku 4.5 scores 5.2% 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 Nova Pro vs Claude Haiku 4.5?

Nova Pro has a 24.0% ASR and Claude Haiku 4.5 has a 5.2% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.

How were Nova Pro and Claude Haiku 4.5 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