Google Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Meta Llama 3H 405B

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 3H 405B scores 36.6% 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 3H 405B. Green marks the safer model on each metric.

Overall (ASR)

Gemini 2.5 Pro
16.1%
Llama 3H 405B
36.6%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Gemini 2.5 Pro
27.5%
Llama 3H 405B

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Gemini 2.5 Pro
19.1%
Llama 3H 405B

Zero-Shot (ASR)

Gemini 2.5 Pro
1.6%
Llama 3H 405B
12.9%

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 3H 405B
Full security profile
Google Gemini 2.5 Pro
Full security profile
Meta Llama 3H 405B

Frequently asked questions

Is Google Gemini 2.5 Pro or Meta Llama 3H 405B 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 3H 405B scores 36.6% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Llama 3H 405B?

Gemini 2.5 Pro has a 16.1% 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 Gemini 2.5 Pro 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.

Related Comparisons