Meta Llama 4 Maverick vs Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B is the more secure of the two: Llama 4 Maverick scores 27.7% and Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).
Head-to-Head Overview
Qwen 2.5 72B is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Meta Llama 4 Maverick vs Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B. Green marks the safer model on each metric.
Overall (ASR)
TAP Attack Method (ASR)
Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)
Zero-Shot (ASR)
Key Highlights
- Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Meta Llama 4 Maverick has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
- Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Meta Llama 4 Maverick or Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B is the more secure of the two: Llama 4 Maverick scores 27.7% and Qwen 2.5 72B scores 26.3% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).
What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Llama 4 Maverick vs Qwen 2.5 72B?
Llama 4 Maverick has a 27.7% ASR and Qwen 2.5 72B has a 26.3% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Llama 4 Maverick and Qwen 2.5 72B 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.