Deepseek Deepseek R1 vs Meta Llama 3H 405B
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 3H 405B is the more secure of the two: Deepseek R1 scores 42.6% and Llama 3H 405B scores 36.6% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).
Head-to-Head Overview
Llama 3H 405B is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for Deepseek Deepseek R1 vs Meta Llama 3H 405B. Green marks the safer model on each metric.
Overall (ASR)
TAP Attack Method (ASR)
Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)
Zero-Shot (ASR)
Key Highlights
- Meta Llama 3H 405B has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Meta Llama 3H 405B has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is Deepseek Deepseek R1 or Meta Llama 3H 405B more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 3H 405B is the more secure of the two: Deepseek R1 scores 42.6% and Llama 3H 405B scores 36.6% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).
What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Deepseek R1 vs Llama 3H 405B?
Deepseek R1 has a 42.6% ASR and Llama 3H 405B has a 36.6% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Deepseek R1 and Llama 3H 405B 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.