xAI Grok-4.1 Thinking vs Anthropic Claude 4.0 Sonnet
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, xAI Grok-4.1 Thinking is the more secure of the two: Grok-4.1 Thinking scores 10.0% and Claude 4.0 Sonnet scores 13.6% 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
Grok-4.1 Thinking is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for xAI Grok-4.1 Thinking vs Anthropic Claude 4.0 Sonnet. 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
- xAI Grok-4.1 Thinking has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Anthropic Claude 4.0 Sonnet has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Anthropic Claude 4.0 Sonnet has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
- Anthropic Claude 4.0 Sonnet has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is xAI Grok-4.1 Thinking or Anthropic Claude 4.0 Sonnet more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, xAI Grok-4.1 Thinking is the more secure of the two: Grok-4.1 Thinking scores 10.0% and Claude 4.0 Sonnet scores 13.6% 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 Grok-4.1 Thinking vs Claude 4.0 Sonnet?
Grok-4.1 Thinking has a 10.0% ASR and Claude 4.0 Sonnet has a 13.6% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Grok-4.1 Thinking and Claude 4.0 Sonnet 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.