Cohere Command A vs OpenAI o3-mini

Detailed comparison for LLMs

CohereOpenAI

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, OpenAI o3-mini is the more secure of the two: Command A scores 26.0% and o3-mini scores 9.0% 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

o3-mini is the overall winner in this comparison!

Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)

ASR for Cohere Command A vs OpenAI o3-mini. Green marks the safer model on each metric. Only the overall score is available for estimated models.

Overall (ASR)

Command A
26.0%
o3-mini
9.0%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Command A
61.2%
o3-mini
100.0%

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Command A
50.5%
o3-mini
100.0%

Zero-Shot (ASR)

Command A
o3-mini
100.0%

Key Highlights

  • OpenAI o3-mini has a lower Overall (ASR).
  • Cohere Command A has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
  • Cohere Command A has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).

Security Profile

Outward is better on every axis.

OverallTAPCrescendoZero-Shot
Command A
o3-mini
Full security profile
Cohere Command A
Full security profile
OpenAI o3-mini

Frequently asked questions

Is Cohere Command A or OpenAI o3-mini more secure?

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, OpenAI o3-mini is the more secure of the two: Command A scores 26.0% and o3-mini scores 9.0% 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 o3-mini?

Command A has a 26.0% ASR and o3-mini has a 9.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.

How were Command A and o3-mini 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