Meta Llama 4 Behemoth vs Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet is the more secure of the two: Llama 4 Behemoth scores 25.0% and Claude 3.7 Sonnet scores 20.3% 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
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Meta Llama 4 Behemoth vs Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet. 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)
Key Highlights
- Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Meta Llama 4 Behemoth or Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet is the more secure of the two: Llama 4 Behemoth scores 25.0% and Claude 3.7 Sonnet scores 20.3% 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 Claude 3.7 Sonnet?
Llama 4 Behemoth has a 25.0% ASR and Claude 3.7 Sonnet has a 20.3% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Llama 4 Behemoth and Claude 3.7 Sonnet 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.