Google Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT vs DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2
Detailed comparison for LLMs
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 is the more secure of the two: Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT scores 55.0% and DeepSeek VL2 scores 52.0% 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 Google Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT vs DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2. 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 Google Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT or DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 more secure?
On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, DeepSeek DeepSeek VL2 is the more secure of the two: Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT scores 55.0% and DeepSeek VL2 scores 52.0% 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 Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT vs DeepSeek VL2?
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT has a 55.0% ASR and DeepSeek VL2 has a 52.0% ASR — the share of adversarial prompts that succeed across zero-shot, TAP, and Crescendo attacks. Lower is safer.
How were Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT and DeepSeek VL2 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.