Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs Cohere Command 2X

Detailed comparison for LLMs

AnthropicCohere

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet is the more secure of the two: Claude 3.7 Sonnet scores 20.3% and Command 2X scores 39.4% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

Head-to-Head Overview

Claude 3.7 Sonnet is the overall winner in this comparison!

Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)

ASR for Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs Cohere Command 2X. Green marks the safer model on each metric.

Overall (ASR)

Claude 3.7 Sonnet
20.3%
Command 2X
39.4%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Claude 3.7 Sonnet
31.4%
Command 2X

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Claude 3.7 Sonnet
25.3%
Command 2X

Zero-Shot (ASR)

Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Command 2X
6.2%

Key Highlights

  • Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet has a lower Overall (ASR).

Security Profile

Outward is better on every axis.

OverallTAPCrescendoZero-Shot
Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Command 2X
Full security profile
Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Full security profile
Cohere Command 2X

Frequently asked questions

Is Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Cohere Command 2X more secure?

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet is the more secure of the two: Claude 3.7 Sonnet scores 20.3% and Command 2X scores 39.4% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs Command 2X?

Claude 3.7 Sonnet has a 20.3% ASR and Command 2X has a 39.4% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.

How were Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Command 2X 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