DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 vs Google Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 is the more secure of the two: DeepSeek VL2 scores 52.0% 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
DeepSeek VL2 is the overall winner in this comparison!
Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)
ASR for DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 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
- DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 has a lower Overall (ASR).
Security Profile
Outward is better on every axis.
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 or Google Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 is the more secure of the two: DeepSeek VL2 scores 52.0% 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 DeepSeek VL2 vs Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT?
DeepSeek VL2 has a 52.0% 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 DeepSeek VL2 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.