Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 vs Cohere Command A
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 is the more secure of the two: Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 scores 4.4% and Command A scores 26.0% 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
Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 vs Cohere Command A. 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 3.5 Sonnet v2 has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 or Cohere Command A more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 is the more secure of the two: Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 scores 4.4% and Command A scores 26.0% 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 Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 vs Command A?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 has a 4.4% ASR and Command A has a 26.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2 and Command A 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.