Meta Llama 4 Behemoth vs Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 4 Behemoth is the more secure of the two: Llama 4 Behemoth scores 25.0% and Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% 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
Llama 4 Behemoth is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Meta Llama 4 Behemoth vs Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B. 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
- Meta Llama 4 Behemoth has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Meta Llama 4 Behemoth or Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 4 Behemoth is the more secure of the two: Llama 4 Behemoth scores 25.0% and Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% 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 Llama 4 Behemoth vs Qwen 2.5 72B?
Llama 4 Behemoth has a 25.0% ASR and Qwen 2.5 72B has a 26.3% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Llama 4 Behemoth and Qwen 2.5 72B 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.