Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs Meta Llama 3H 405B

Detailed comparison for LLMs

AnthropicMeta

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 Llama 3H 405B scores 36.6% 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 Meta Llama 3H 405B. Green marks the safer model on each metric.

Overall (ASR)

Claude 3.7 Sonnet
20.3%
Llama 3H 405B
36.6%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Claude 3.7 Sonnet
31.4%
Llama 3H 405B

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Claude 3.7 Sonnet
25.3%
Llama 3H 405B

Zero-Shot (ASR)

Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Llama 3H 405B
12.9%

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
Llama 3H 405B
Full security profile
Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Full security profile
Meta Llama 3H 405B

Frequently asked questions

Is Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Meta Llama 3H 405B 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 Llama 3H 405B scores 36.6% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs Llama 3H 405B?

Claude 3.7 Sonnet has a 20.3% ASR and Llama 3H 405B has a 36.6% 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 Llama 3H 405B 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