Alibaba Qwen3-Max vs Meta Llama 4 Scout

Detailed comparison for LLMs

AlibabaMeta

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3-Max is the more secure of the two: Qwen3-Max scores 28.0% and Llama 4 Scout scores 30.0% 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

Qwen3-Max is the overall winner in this comparison!

Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)

ASR for Alibaba Qwen3-Max vs Meta Llama 4 Scout. Green marks the safer model on each metric. Only the overall score is available for estimated models.

Overall (ASR)

Qwen3-Max
28.0%
Llama 4 Scout
30.0%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Qwen3-Max
Llama 4 Scout
63.5%

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Qwen3-Max
Llama 4 Scout
20.3%

Zero-Shot (ASR)

Qwen3-Max
Llama 4 Scout
6.1%

Key Highlights

  • Alibaba Qwen3-Max has a lower Overall (ASR).

Security Profile

Outward is better on every axis.

OverallTAPCrescendoZero-Shot
Qwen3-Max
Llama 4 Scout
Full security profile
Alibaba Qwen3-Max
Full security profile
Meta Llama 4 Scout

Frequently asked questions

Is Alibaba Qwen3-Max or Meta Llama 4 Scout more secure?

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen3-Max is the more secure of the two: Qwen3-Max scores 28.0% and Llama 4 Scout scores 30.0% 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 Qwen3-Max vs Llama 4 Scout?

Qwen3-Max has a 28.0% ASR and Llama 4 Scout has a 30.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.

How were Qwen3-Max and Llama 4 Scout 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