Comparison Overview

Agilent Technologies

VS

Charles River Laboratories

Agilent Technologies

5301 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Santa Clara, CA, 95051, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 800 and 849

Agilent customers are finding new ways to treat cancer, ensure food, water, air, and medicine quality and safety, discover new drug treatments, research infectious diseases, and create alternative energy solutions for a greener planet. From start to finish, we have them covered with our vast product solutions and services portfolio. Around the world, Agilent’s people bring innovations, technologies, and services to the forefront of science. Our teams design and manufacture a wide array of advanced analytical, research, and diagnostic solutions and tools for use inside and outside laboratories. Additionally, the unique expertise of Agilent’s CrossLab and technical teams provides valuable insight and support to our customers, helping them fully optimize their laboratories and resources to better focus on what's important: bringing great science to life. In fiscal 2022, Agilent Technologies generated revenue of (US) $6.85 billion.

NAICS: 541714
NAICS Definition: Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees: 17,078
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Charles River Laboratories

251 Ballardvale Street, Wilmington, Massachusetts, 01887, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

At Charles River, we are guided by our strong purpose—to create healthier lives—which centers around the patients who rely on the therapeutics we help to develop, the animals in our care, to our planet, and to the passionate and skilled people who are at the heart of our organization and make it all possible. #DrugDiscovery #Biotech #Biotechnology #Pharmaceuticals #CRL

NAICS: 541714
NAICS Definition: Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees: 14,665
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/agilent-technologies.jpeg
Agilent Technologies
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/charles-river-laboratories.jpeg
Charles River Laboratories
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Agilent Technologies
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Charles River Laboratories
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Biotechnology Research Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Agilent Technologies in 2025.

Incidents vs Biotechnology Research Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Charles River Laboratories in 2025.

Incident History — Agilent Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Agilent Technologies cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Charles River Laboratories (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Charles River Laboratories cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/agilent-technologies.jpeg
Agilent Technologies
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/charles-river-laboratories.jpeg
Charles River Laboratories
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Agilent Technologies company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Charles River Laboratories company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Charles River Laboratories company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Agilent Technologies company.

In the current year, Charles River Laboratories company and Agilent Technologies company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Charles River Laboratories company nor Agilent Technologies company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Charles River Laboratories company nor Agilent Technologies company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Charles River Laboratories company nor Agilent Technologies company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Agilent Technologies company nor Charles River Laboratories company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Agilent Technologies nor Charles River Laboratories holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Agilent Technologies company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Charles River Laboratories company.

Agilent Technologies company employs more people globally than Charles River Laboratories company, reflecting its scale as a Biotechnology Research.

Neither Agilent Technologies nor Charles River Laboratories holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Agilent Technologies nor Charles River Laboratories holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Agilent Technologies nor Charles River Laboratories holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Agilent Technologies nor Charles River Laboratories holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Agilent Technologies nor Charles River Laboratories holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Agilent Technologies nor Charles River Laboratories holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Sigstore Timestamp Authority is a service for issuing RFC 3161 timestamps. Prior to 2.0.3, Function api.ParseJSONRequest currently splits (via a call to strings.Split) an optionally-provided OID (which is untrusted data) on periods. Similarly, function api.getContentType splits the Content-Type header (which is also untrusted data) on an application string. As a result, in the face of a malicious request with either an excessively long OID in the payload containing many period characters or a malformed Content-Type header, a call to api.ParseJSONRequest or api.getContentType incurs allocations of O(n) bytes (where n stands for the length of the function's argument). This vulnerability is fixed in 2.0.3.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Monkeytype is a minimalistic and customizable typing test. In 25.49.0 and earlier, there is improper handling of user input which allows an attacker to execute malicious javascript on anyone viewing a malicious quote submission. quote.text and quote.source are user input, and they're inserted straight into the DOM. If they contain HTML tags, they will be rendered (after some escaping using quotes and textarea tags).

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

SysReptor is a fully customizable pentest reporting platform. Prior to 2025.102, there is a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability allows authenticated users to execute malicious JavaScript in the context of other logged-in users by uploading malicious JavaScript files in the web UI. This vulnerability is fixed in 2025.102.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Taiko Alethia is an Ethereum-equivalent, permissionless, based rollup designed to scale Ethereum without compromising its fundamental properties. In 2.3.1 and earlier, TaikoInbox._verifyBatches (packages/protocol/contracts/layer1/based/TaikoInbox.sol:627-678) advanced the local tid to whatever transition matched the current blockHash before knowing whether that batch would actually be verified. When the loop later broke (e.g., cooldown window not yet passed or transition invalidated), the function still wrote that newer tid into batches[lastVerifiedBatchId].verifiedTransitionId after decrementing batchId. Result: the last verified batch could end up pointing at a transition index from the next batch (often zeroed), corrupting the verified chain pointer.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

A flaw has been found in youlaitech youlai-mall 1.0.0/2.0.0. Affected is the function getById/updateAddress/deleteAddress of the file /mall-ums/app-api/v1/addresses/. Executing manipulation can lead to improper control of dynamically-identified variables. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X