Comparison Overview

BBVA

VS

Axis Bank

BBVA

Plaza de San Nicolas 4, Bilbao, Vizcaya, 48005, ES
Last Update: 2026-01-18

At BBVA we are leading the transformation of banking worldwide, united in pursuing our goal of bringing the age of opportunity to everyone. Firmly focused on the future, our on-going digital transformation is already producing disruptive innovations that power our vision of banking. Every one of our 121,486 employees, from branch staff to senior leaders, plays an essential role in giving our 71.5 million customers the cutting edge banking solutions that they deserve. Building on 166 years of history we know the importance of constant development, which is why we place so much confidence in the collaborative working environment that enables our people to grow and excel. If you would like to learn about the culture and opportunities on offer at a company that is leading the way for 21st century banking, head to the ‘Life’ tab to find out more.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 119,358
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Axis Bank

Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400025, IN
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

Axis Bank is the third largest private sector bank in India. The Bank offers the entire spectrum of financial services to customer segments covering Large and Mid-Corporates, MSME, Agriculture and Retail Businesses. The Bank has a large footprint of 5000 domestic branches (including extension counters) with 15,751 ATMs & cash recyclers spread across the country. The Bank has 6 Axis Virtual Centres with over 1,500 Virtual Relationship Managers as on 31st March 2023. The Overseas operations of the Bank are spread over eight international offices with branches in Singapore, Dubai (at DIFC), and Gift City-IBU; representative offices in Dhaka, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and an overseas subsidiary in London, UK. The international offices focus on Corporate Lending, Coverage Business, Trade Finance, Syndication, Investment Banking, Liability Businesses, and Private Banking/Wealth Management offerings. Axis Bank is one of the first new generation private sector banks to have begun operations in 1994. The Bank was promoted in 1993, jointly by Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India (SUUTI) (then known as Unit Trust of India), Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), General Insurance Corporation of India (GIC), National Insurance Company Ltd. (NIC), The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (NIA), The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (OIC), and United India Insurance Company Ltd. (UIIC). The shareholding of Unit Trust of India was subsequently transferred to SUUTI, an entity established in 2003. GIC, NIC, NIA, OIC, UIIC have been reclassified from promoter category to public category. As on March 31, 2023, SUUTI and LIC are the promoters of the Bank. With a balance sheet size of Rs. 13,17,326 crores as on 31st March 2023, Axis Bank has achieved consistent growth and with a 5-year CAGR (2017-18 to 2022-23) of 14% each in Total Assets & Advances and 16% in Deposits.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 91,929
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/bbva.jpeg
BBVA
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/axis-bank.jpeg
Axis Bank
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
BBVA
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Axis Bank
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BBVA in 2026.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Axis Bank in 2026.

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

BBVA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Axis Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Axis Bank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bbva.jpeg
BBVA
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/axis-bank.jpeg
Axis Bank
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Compromised ATM network processing
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Axis Bank company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas BBVA company has not reported any.

In the current year, Axis Bank company and BBVA company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Axis Bank company nor BBVA company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Axis Bank company has disclosed at least one data breach, while BBVA company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Axis Bank company nor BBVA company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither BBVA company nor Axis Bank company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither BBVA nor Axis Bank holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BBVA company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Axis Bank company.

BBVA company employs more people globally than Axis Bank company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither BBVA nor Axis Bank holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither BBVA nor Axis Bank holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither BBVA nor Axis Bank holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither BBVA nor Axis Bank holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither BBVA nor Axis Bank holds HIPAA certification.

Neither BBVA nor Axis Bank 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