Mistral Ministral 3 3B Base 2512 vs Google Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Google Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT is the more secure of the two: Ministral 3 3B Base 2512 scores 62.0% and Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT scores 55.0% 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
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Mistral Ministral 3 3B Base 2512 vs Google Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT. 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 Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Mistral Ministral 3 3B Base 2512 or Google Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Google Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT is the more secure of the two: Ministral 3 3B Base 2512 scores 62.0% and Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT scores 55.0% 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 Ministral 3 3B Base 2512 vs Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT?
Ministral 3 3B Base 2512 has a 62.0% ASR and Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT has a 55.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Ministral 3 3B Base 2512 and Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT 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.