Google Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Meta Llama 3-7 DS

Detailed comparison for LLMs

GoogleMeta

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Google Gemini 2.5 Pro is the more secure of the two: Gemini 2.5 Pro scores 16.1% and Llama 3-7 DS scores 32.2% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

Head-to-Head Overview

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the overall winner in this comparison!

Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)

ASR for Google Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Meta Llama 3-7 DS. Green marks the safer model on each metric.

Overall (ASR)

Gemini 2.5 Pro
16.1%
Llama 3-7 DS
32.2%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Gemini 2.5 Pro
27.5%
Llama 3-7 DS

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Gemini 2.5 Pro
19.1%
Llama 3-7 DS

Zero-Shot (ASR)

Gemini 2.5 Pro
1.6%
Llama 3-7 DS
10.5%

Key Highlights

  • Google Gemini 2.5 Pro has a lower Overall (ASR).
  • Google Gemini 2.5 Pro has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).

Security Profile

Outward is better on every axis.

OverallTAPCrescendoZero-Shot
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Llama 3-7 DS
Full security profile
Google Gemini 2.5 Pro
Full security profile
Meta Llama 3-7 DS

Frequently asked questions

Is Google Gemini 2.5 Pro or Meta Llama 3-7 DS more secure?

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Google Gemini 2.5 Pro is the more secure of the two: Gemini 2.5 Pro scores 16.1% and Llama 3-7 DS scores 32.2% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Llama 3-7 DS?

Gemini 2.5 Pro has a 16.1% ASR and Llama 3-7 DS has a 32.2% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.

How were Gemini 2.5 Pro and Llama 3-7 DS 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.

Related Comparisons