Both nouns can be either a count noun or a mass noun. I think individually benefit tends to be used countably more than it appears as a mass noun.
We list the potential benefits (count) of a thing. And sometimes we don't get much benefit (mass) from things. Risk is similar in this regard.
But I feel uncertain about this phrase "weigh benefit(s) against risk(s)"
- We need to weigh benefit against risk.
- We need to weigh benefits against risks.
- We need to weigh benefits against risk.
Intuitively I feel more comfortable with 3 and would go with it, as when we speak of the element of risk, it sometimes cannot be counted. (But we do say "there are risks.") Interestingly, all three appear in print.
They need to weigh benefit against risk (Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus)
A third set of problems arises when the agency seeks to weigh benefits against risks. (Book by Justice Stephen Breyer)
At present it is not possible to weigh benefits against risk for low dose somatic effects. (Congress hearings)
Consistency is a rare commodity when it comes to this. On the risk-benefit ration Wiki page:
Risk–benefit analysis is analysis that seeks to quantify the risk and benefits and hence their ratio.
For research that involves more than minimal risk of harm to the subjects, the investigator must assure that the amount of benefit clearly outweighs the amount of risk.
At this point it does seem this might be a case of personal style. But I am still wondering when benefit and risk are mass nouns, and why should we favor one way over the other?