xAI Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning vs Mistral Mistral Large 3 675B Instruct 2512
Detailed comparison for LLMs
xAI Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning and Mistral Mistral Large 3 675B Instruct 2512 are evenly matched at about 33.0% attack success rate (ASR) on Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark. One or both scores are estimated from public safety evaluations pending a Guardion benchmark run.
Head-to-Head Overview
It's a close match between Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning and Mistral Large 3 675B Instruct 2512!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for xAI Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning vs Mistral Mistral Large 3 675B Instruct 2512. 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
No specific highlights generated for this comparison.
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is xAI Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning or Mistral Mistral Large 3 675B Instruct 2512 more secure?
xAI Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning and Mistral Mistral Large 3 675B Instruct 2512 are evenly matched at about 33.0% attack success rate (ASR) on Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark. 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 Fast Non-Reasoning vs Mistral Large 3 675B Instruct 2512?
Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning has a 33.0% ASR and Mistral Large 3 675B Instruct 2512 has a 33.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Grok-4 Fast Non-Reasoning and Mistral Large 3 675B Instruct 2512 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.