xAI Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning vs Meta Llama 3-7 DS
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 3-7 DS is the more secure of the two: Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning scores 33.0% and Llama 3-7 DS scores 32.2% 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 3-7 DS is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for xAI Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning vs Meta Llama 3-7 DS. 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 3-7 DS has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Meta Llama 3-7 DS has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is xAI Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning or Meta Llama 3-7 DS more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 3-7 DS is the more secure of the two: Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning scores 33.0% and Llama 3-7 DS scores 32.2% 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 Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning vs Llama 3-7 DS?
Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning has a 33.0% ASR and Llama 3-7 DS has a 32.2% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning and Llama 3-7 DS 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.