Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 vs Deepseek Deepseek R1
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 is the more secure of the two: Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 scores 16.0% and Deepseek R1 scores 42.6% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).
Head-to-Head Overview
Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 vs Deepseek Deepseek R1. 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 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 Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 or Deepseek Deepseek R1 more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 is the more secure of the two: Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 scores 16.0% and Deepseek R1 scores 42.6% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).
What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 vs Deepseek R1?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 has a 16.0% ASR and Deepseek R1 has a 42.6% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 and Deepseek R1 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.