DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 vs Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite is the more secure of the two: DeepSeek VL2 scores 52.0% and Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite scores 31.3% 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 Lite is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 vs Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite. 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 Lite has a lower Overall (ASR).
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite has a lower TAP Attack Method (ASR).
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite has a lower Crescendo Attack Method (ASR).
- Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 or Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite is the more secure of the two: DeepSeek VL2 scores 52.0% and Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite scores 31.3% 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 DeepSeek VL2 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite?
DeepSeek VL2 has a 52.0% ASR and Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite has a 31.3% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were DeepSeek VL2 and Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite 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.