Cohere Command A vs Meta Llama 4 Behemoth

Detailed comparison for LLMs

CohereMeta

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 4 Behemoth is the more secure of the two: Command A scores 26.0% and Llama 4 Behemoth scores 25.0% 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

Llama 4 Behemoth is the overall winner in this comparison!

Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)

ASR for Cohere Command A vs Meta Llama 4 Behemoth. Green marks the safer model on each metric. Only the overall score is available for estimated models.

Overall (ASR)

Command A
26.0%
Llama 4 Behemoth
25.0%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Command A
61.2%
Llama 4 Behemoth

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Command A
50.5%
Llama 4 Behemoth

Key Highlights

  • Meta Llama 4 Behemoth has a lower Overall (ASR).

Security Profile

Outward is better on every axis.

OverallTAPCrescendo
Command A
Llama 4 Behemoth
Full security profile
Cohere Command A
Full security profile
Meta Llama 4 Behemoth

Frequently asked questions

Is Cohere Command A or Meta Llama 4 Behemoth more secure?

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 4 Behemoth is the more secure of the two: Command A scores 26.0% and Llama 4 Behemoth scores 25.0% 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 Command A vs Llama 4 Behemoth?

Command A has a 26.0% ASR and Llama 4 Behemoth has a 25.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.

How were Command A and Llama 4 Behemoth 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