Releasing data in the form of trained neural networks with differential privacy promises meaningful anonymization. However, there is an inherent privacy-accuracy trade-off in differential privacy which is challenging to assess for non-privacy experts. Furthermore, local and central differential privacy mechanisms are available to either anonymize the training data or the learnt neural network, and the privacy parameter $\epsilon$ cannot be used to compare these two mechanisms. We propose to measure privacy through a black-box membership inference attack and compare the privacy-accuracy trade-off for different local and central differential privacy mechanisms. Furthermore, we need to evaluate whether differential privacy is a useful mechanism in practice since differential privacy will especially be used by data scientists if membership inference risk is lowered more than accuracy. We experiment with several datasets and show that neither local differential privacy nor central differential privacy yields a consistently better privacy-accuracy trade-off in all cases. We also show that the relative privacy-accuracy trade-off, instead of strictly declining linearly over $\epsilon$, is only favorable within a small interval. For this purpose we propose $\varphi$, a ratio expressing the relative privacy-accuracy trade-off.