Alibaba Qwen3-Max vs Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 is the more secure of the two: Qwen3-Max scores 28.0% and Claude Opus 4.5 scores 3.4% 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 Opus 4.5 is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Alibaba Qwen3-Max vs Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5. 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
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Alibaba Qwen3-Max or Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 is the more secure of the two: Qwen3-Max scores 28.0% and Claude Opus 4.5 scores 3.4% 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 Claude Opus 4.5?
Qwen3-Max has a 28.0% ASR and Claude Opus 4.5 has a 3.4% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Qwen3-Max and Claude Opus 4.5 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.