Anthropic Claude 4.0 Sonnet vs xAI Grok-4.1 Thinking
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, xAI Grok-4.1 Thinking is the more secure of the two: Claude 4.0 Sonnet scores 13.6% and Grok-4.1 Thinking scores 10.0% 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
Grok-4.1 Thinking is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Anthropic Claude 4.0 Sonnet vs xAI Grok-4.1 Thinking. Green marks the safer model on each metric. Only the overall score is available for estimated models.
Overall (ASR)
TAP Attack Method (ASR)
Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)
Zero-Shot (ASR)
Key Highlights
- xAI Grok-4.1 Thinking has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Anthropic Claude 4.0 Sonnet has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Anthropic Claude 4.0 Sonnet has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
- Anthropic Claude 4.0 Sonnet has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Anthropic Claude 4.0 Sonnet or xAI Grok-4.1 Thinking more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, xAI Grok-4.1 Thinking is the more secure of the two: Claude 4.0 Sonnet scores 13.6% and Grok-4.1 Thinking scores 10.0% 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 Claude 4.0 Sonnet vs Grok-4.1 Thinking?
Claude 4.0 Sonnet has a 13.6% ASR and Grok-4.1 Thinking has a 10.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Claude 4.0 Sonnet and Grok-4.1 Thinking 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.