Deepseek Deepseek V3 vs Meta Llama 3-7 DS

Detailed comparison for LLMs

DeepseekMeta

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 3-7 DS is the more secure of the two: Deepseek V3 scores 47.2% and Llama 3-7 DS scores 32.2% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

Head-to-Head Overview

Llama 3-7 DS is the overall winner in this comparison!

Attack Success Rate (lower is safer)

ASR for Deepseek Deepseek V3 vs Meta Llama 3-7 DS. Green marks the safer model on each metric.

Overall (ASR)

Deepseek V3
47.2%
Llama 3-7 DS
32.2%

TAP Attack Method (ASR)

Deepseek V3
79.5%
Llama 3-7 DS

Crescendo Attack Method (ASR)

Deepseek V3
49.3%
Llama 3-7 DS

Zero-Shot (ASR)

Deepseek V3
12.8%
Llama 3-7 DS
10.5%

Key Highlights

  • Meta Llama 3-7 DS has a lower Overall (ASR).
  • Meta Llama 3-7 DS has a lower Zero-Shot (ASR).

Security Profile

Outward is better on every axis.

OverallTAPCrescendoZero-Shot
Deepseek V3
Llama 3-7 DS
Full security profile
Deepseek Deepseek V3
Full security profile
Meta Llama 3-7 DS

Frequently asked questions

Is Deepseek Deepseek V3 or Meta Llama 3-7 DS more secure?

On Guardion's LLM vulnerability Benchmark, Meta Llama 3-7 DS is the more secure of the two: Deepseek V3 scores 47.2% and Llama 3-7 DS scores 32.2% on attack success rate (ASR) (lower is better).

What is the attack success rate (ASR) of Deepseek V3 vs Llama 3-7 DS?

Deepseek V3 has a 47.2% 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 Deepseek V3 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