Cohere Command A vs Meta Llama 3-7 DS

Detailed comparison for LLMs

CohereMeta

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Cohere Command A is the more secure of the two: Command A scores 26.0% 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

Command A is the overall winner in this comparison!

Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)

ASR for Cohere Command A 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)

Command A
26.0%
Llama 3-7 DS
32.2%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Command A
61.2%
Llama 3-7 DS

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Command A
50.5%
Llama 3-7 DS

Zero-Shot (ASR)

Command A
Llama 3-7 DS
10.5%

Key Highlights

  • Cohere Command A has a lower Overall (ASR).

Security Profile

Outward is better on every axis.

OverallTAPCrescendoZero-Shot
Command A
Llama 3-7 DS
Full security profile
Cohere Command A
Full security profile
Meta Llama 3-7 DS

Frequently asked questions

Is Cohere Command A or Meta Llama 3-7 DS more secure?

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Cohere Command A is the more secure of the two: Command A scores 26.0% 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 Command A vs Llama 3-7 DS?

Command A has a 26.0% 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 Command A 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.

Related Comparisons