Abstract
As large language models (LLMs) and generative AI become widely adopted,guardrails have emerged as a key tool to ensure their safe use. However, addingguardrails isn't without tradeoffs; stronger security measures can reduceusability, while more flexible systems may leave gaps for adversarial attacks.In this work, we explore whether current guardrails effectively prevent misusewhile maintaining practical utility. We introduce a framework to evaluate thesetradeoffs, measuring how different guardrails balance risk, security, andusability, and build an efficient guardrail. Our findings confirm that there is no free lunch with guardrails;strengthening security often comes at the cost of usability. To address this,we propose a blueprint for designing better guardrails that minimize risk whilemaintaining usability. We evaluate various industry guardrails, including AzureContent Safety, Bedrock Guardrails, OpenAI's Moderation API, Guardrails AI,Nemo Guardrails, and Enkrypt AI guardrails. Additionally, we assess how LLMslike GPT-4o, Gemini 2.0-Flash, Claude 3.5-Sonnet, and Mistral Large-Latestrespond under different system prompts, including simple prompts, detailedprompts, and detailed prompts with chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. Our studyprovides a clear comparison of how different guardrails perform, highlightingthe challenges in balancing security and usability.