Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 vs Meta Llama 4 Maverick
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 Llama 4 Maverick scores 27.7% 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 Meta Llama 4 Maverick. 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).
- Meta Llama 4 Maverick 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 Meta Llama 4 Maverick 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 Llama 4 Maverick scores 27.7% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).
What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 vs Llama 4 Maverick?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 has a 16.0% 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 Claude 3.5 Sonnet v1 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.