Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct vs Alibaba Qwen 7-72BB
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is the more secure of the two: Llama 3.1 405B Instruct scores 36.0% and Qwen 7-72BB scores 36.5% 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 3.1 405B Instruct is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct vs Alibaba Qwen 7-72BB. 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
- Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Alibaba Qwen 7-72BB has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct or Alibaba Qwen 7-72BB more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is the more secure of the two: Llama 3.1 405B Instruct scores 36.0% and Qwen 7-72BB scores 36.5% 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 Llama 3.1 405B Instruct vs Qwen 7-72BB?
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct has a 36.0% ASR and Qwen 7-72BB has a 36.5% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Llama 3.1 405B Instruct and Qwen 7-72BB 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.