Comparison Overview

Anthem, Inc.

VS

UCHealth

Anthem, Inc.

220 Virginia Ave, Indianapolis, Indiana, US, 46203
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 550 and 599

Anthem, Inc. is now Elevance Health. Please follow us at https://www.linkedin.com/company/elevance-health

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 20,202
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
3

UCHealth

12401 E. 17th Avenue, Human Resources, Aurora, CO, US, 80045
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

At UCHealth, we do things differently. We strive to promote individual and community health and leave no question unanswered along the way. We’re driven to improve and optimize health care. Our network of nationally-recognized hospitals, clinic locations and health care providers extends throughout Colorado, southern Wyoming and western Nebraska. We deliver excellent care close to home, no matter where you might live. Our success is defined by more than our patient volumes or treatment outcomes. It’s about building a team of exceptional people, from our clinical staff to our expert physicians, who consistently do what is right for the individuals we are honored to serve. UCHealth, a 501(c) (3) health system, was formed in 2012 to increase access to innovative and advanced patient care, realize supply chain and IT efficiencies, and to better serve patients throughout the Rocky Mountain region by combining academic-based and community-focused medicine. Together, the clinics and hospitals within UCHealth can offer the most advanced treatments to improve the lives of patients and their families in Colorado and beyond.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 22,518
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/antheminc.jpeg
Anthem, Inc.
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/uchealth.jpeg
UCHealth
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
Anthem, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
UCHealth
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

Anthem, Inc. has 166.67% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UCHealth in 2025.

Incident History — Anthem, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Anthem, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — UCHealth (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UCHealth cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/antheminc.jpeg
Anthem, Inc.
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Theft
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uchealth.jpeg
UCHealth
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access to Diligent Software
Blog: Blog

FAQ

UCHealth company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Anthem, Inc. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Anthem, Inc. company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to UCHealth company.

In the current year, Anthem, Inc. company has reported more cyber incidents than UCHealth company.

Anthem, Inc. company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while UCHealth company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both UCHealth company and Anthem, Inc. company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Anthem, Inc. company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while UCHealth company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Anthem, Inc. company nor UCHealth company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Anthem, Inc. nor UCHealth holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Anthem, Inc. company nor UCHealth company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

UCHealth company employs more people globally than Anthem, Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Anthem, Inc. nor UCHealth holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Anthem, Inc. nor UCHealth holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Anthem, Inc. nor UCHealth holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Anthem, Inc. nor UCHealth holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Anthem, Inc. nor UCHealth holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Anthem, Inc. nor UCHealth holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

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