Comparison Overview

Aviva

VS

MetLife

Aviva

80 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 4AE, , GB
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

💛 We're a leading Insurance, Wealth & Retirement business. 📣 Follow for #LifeAtAviva. Aviva is nothing without our people. Living up to our purpose to be with you today for a better tomorrow applies to those we work with just as much as it does to our customers. We want Aviva to be a place where people can be themselves, and we want our workforce to reflect the customers and communities we serve. This means offering market-leading benefits and challenging ourselves to do more to build a workplace – and society – that works for all. It takes you. It takes Aviva.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 26,133
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

MetLife

200 Park Ave, New York, NY, US, 10166
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 650 and 699

We live in a time of unprecedented change. A time when economies, regulations, and social safety nets are all in flux. Customers around the globe have told us they’re overwhelmed by the pace of change and are looking for a trusted partner to help them manage life’s twists and turns. MetLife is committed to being that partner. That’s why we’re transforming our business: Delivering greater value for the people we serve by becoming a simpler, more focused, and future-facing company. We’ll be introducing new ways to meet our customers’ evolving needs, with flexible products; simpler, more intuitive experiences and a range of new services. MetLife. Navigating life together. For customer service: https://www.metlife.com/support-and-manage/contact-us/ For social media notices: https://www.metlife.com/about-us/terms-and-conditions/social-media/ MetLife, Inc. (NYSE: MET), through its subsidiaries and affiliates (“MetLife”), is one of the world’s leading financial services companies, providing insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset management to help its individual and institutional customers navigate their changing world. Founded in 1868, MetLife has operations in more than 40 markets globally and holds leading positions in the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 43,494
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aviva-plc.jpeg
Aviva
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/metlife.jpeg
MetLife
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
Aviva
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
MetLife
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aviva in 2026.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MetLife in 2026.

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

Aviva cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

MetLife cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aviva-plc.jpeg
Aviva
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2014
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Phishing, Social Engineering
Motivation: Revenge
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/metlife.jpeg
MetLife
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Coding Transmission Error
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2020
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

MetLife company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Aviva company.

In the current year, MetLife company and Aviva company have not reported any cyber incidents.

MetLife company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Aviva company has not reported such incidents publicly.

MetLife company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Aviva company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Aviva company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while MetLife company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Aviva company nor MetLife company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Aviva nor MetLife holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Aviva company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to MetLife company.

MetLife company employs more people globally than Aviva company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Aviva nor MetLife holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Aviva nor MetLife holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Aviva nor MetLife holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Aviva nor MetLife holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Aviva nor MetLife holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Aviva nor MetLife holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N