Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 vs Google Gemini 2.0 Flash
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 is the more secure of the two: Claude Opus 4.5 scores 3.4% and Gemini 2.0 Flash scores 33.6% 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
Claude Opus 4.5 is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 vs Google Gemini 2.0 Flash. 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
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 or Google Gemini 2.0 Flash more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 is the more secure of the two: Claude Opus 4.5 scores 3.4% and Gemini 2.0 Flash scores 33.6% 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 Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.5 has a 3.4% ASR and Gemini 2.0 Flash has a 33.6% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini 2.0 Flash 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.