Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) trained with Backpropagation (BP) show astounding performance and are increasingly often used in performing our daily life tasks. However, ANNs are highly vulnerable to adversarial attacks, which alter inputs with small targeted perturbations that drastically disrupt the models' performance. The most effective method to make ANNs robust against these attacks is adversarial training, in which the training dataset is augmented with exemplary adversarial samples. Unfortunately, this approach has the drawback of increased training complexity since generating adversarial samples is very computationally demanding. In contrast to ANNs, humans are not susceptible to adversarial attacks. Therefore, in this work, we investigate whether biologically-plausible learning algorithms are more robust against adversarial attacks than BP. In particular, we present an extensive comparative analysis of the adversarial robustness of BP and \textit{Present the Error to Perturb the Input To modulate Activity} (PEPITA), a recently proposed biologically-plausible learning algorithm, on various computer vision tasks. We observe that PEPITA has higher intrinsic adversarial robustness and, with adversarial training, has a more favourable natural-vs-adversarial performance trade-off as, for the same natural accuracies, PEPITA's adversarial accuracies decrease in average by 0.26% and BP's by 8.05%.