Google Gemma 3n E4B vs DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2
Detailed comparison for LLMs
Google Gemma 3n E4B and DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 are evenly matched at about 52.0% 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 Gemma 3n E4B and DeepSeek VL2!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Google Gemma 3n E4B vs DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2. 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 Google Gemma 3n E4B or DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 more secure?
Google Gemma 3n E4B and DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 are evenly matched at about 52.0% 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 Gemma 3n E4B vs DeepSeek VL2?
Gemma 3n E4B has a 52.0% ASR and DeepSeek VL2 has a 52.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Gemma 3n E4B and DeepSeek VL2 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.