Cohere Command R Plus vs Meta Llama 3H 405B

Detailed comparison for LLMs

CohereMeta

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 3H 405B is the more secure of the two: Command R Plus scores 43.3% and Llama 3H 405B scores 36.6% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

Head-to-Head Overview

Llama 3H 405B is the overall winner in this comparison!

Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)

ASR for Cohere Command R Plus vs Meta Llama 3H 405B. Green marks the safer model on each metric.

Overall (ASR)

Command R Plus
43.3%
Llama 3H 405B
36.6%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Command R Plus
65.8%
Llama 3H 405B

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Command R Plus
47.1%
Llama 3H 405B

Zero-Shot (ASR)

Command R Plus
17.1%
Llama 3H 405B
12.9%

Key Highlights

  • Meta Llama 3H 405B has a lower Overall (ASR).
  • Meta Llama 3H 405B has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).

Security Profile

Outward is better on every axis.

OverallTAPCrescendoZero-Shot
Command R Plus
Llama 3H 405B
Full security profile
Cohere Command R Plus
Full security profile
Meta Llama 3H 405B

Frequently asked questions

Is Cohere Command R Plus or Meta Llama 3H 405B more secure?

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 3H 405B is the more secure of the two: Command R Plus scores 43.3% and Llama 3H 405B scores 36.6% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Command R Plus vs Llama 3H 405B?

Command R Plus has a 43.3% 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 Command R Plus 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