Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct vs Google Gemini 2.0 Flash
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Google Gemini 2.0 Flash is the more secure of the two: Llama 3.1 405B Instruct scores 36.0% and Gemini 2.0 Flash scores 33.6% 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
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Meta Llama 3.1 405B Instruct vs Google Gemini 2.0 Flash. 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
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash 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 Google Gemini 2.0 Flash more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Google Gemini 2.0 Flash is the more secure of the two: Llama 3.1 405B Instruct scores 36.0% and Gemini 2.0 Flash scores 33.6% 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 Llama 3.1 405B Instruct vs Gemini 2.0 Flash?
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct has a 36.0% ASR and Gemini 2.0 Flash has a 33.6% 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 Gemini 2.0 Flash 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.