Comparison Overview

Best Western Hotels & Resorts

VS

Marriott Hotels

Best Western Hotels & Resorts

6201 N 24th Parkway, Phoenix, 85016, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Best Western Hotels & Resorts headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, is a privately held hotel company within the BWH℠ Hotels global enterprise. With 19 brands and approximately 4,300 hotels in over 100 countries and territories worldwide*, BWH Hotels suits the needs of developers and guests in every market. Brands include Best Western®, Best Western Plus®, Best Western Premier®, @HOME by Best WesternSM, Executive Residency by Best Western®, Vīb®, GLō®, Aiden®, Sadie®, BW Premier Collection® and BW Signature Collection®. Through acquisition, WorldHotelsTM Luxury, Elite, Distinctive and Crafted collections are also offered. Completing the portfolio is SureStay®, SureStay Plus®, SureStay Collection® and SureStay Studio® franchises**. For more information visit www.bestwestern.com, www.bestwesterndevelopers.com, www.worldhotels.com and www.surestay.com. * Numbers are approximate, may fluctuate, and include hotels currently in the development pipeline. **All Best Western, WorldHotels and SureStay branded hotels are independently owned and operated.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 17,413
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Marriott Hotels

10400 Fernwood Rd, Bethesda, 20817, US
Last Update: 2026-01-16

With over 500 properties worldwide, Marriott Hotels has reimagined hospitality to exceed the expectations of business, group, and leisure travelers. Marriott Hotels, Marriott’s flagship brand of quality-tier, full-service hotels and resorts, provides consistent, dependable and genuinely caring experiences to guests on their terms. Marriott is a brilliant host to guests who effortlessly blend life and work, and who are inspired by how modern travel enhances them both. Our hotels offer warm, professional service; sophisticated yet functional guest room design; lobby spaces that facilitate working, dining and socializing; restaurants and bars serving international cuisine prepared simply and from the freshest ingredients; meeting and event spaces and services that are gold standard; and expansive, 24-hour fitness facilities.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 42,337
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/best-western-hotels-&-resorts.jpeg
Best Western Hotels & Resorts
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/marriott_hotels_resorts.jpeg
Marriott Hotels
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
Best Western Hotels & Resorts
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Marriott Hotels
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Best Western Hotels & Resorts in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Marriott Hotels in 2026.

Incident History — Best Western Hotels & Resorts (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Best Western Hotels & Resorts cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Marriott Hotels (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marriott Hotels cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/best-western-hotels-&-resorts.jpeg
Best Western Hotels & Resorts
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/marriott_hotels_resorts.jpeg
Marriott Hotels
Incidents

Date Detected: 07/2022
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Best Western Hotels & Resorts company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Marriott Hotels company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Marriott Hotels company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Best Western Hotels & Resorts company has not reported any.

In the current year, Marriott Hotels company and Best Western Hotels & Resorts company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Marriott Hotels company nor Best Western Hotels & Resorts company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Marriott Hotels company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Best Western Hotels & Resorts company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Marriott Hotels company nor Best Western Hotels & Resorts company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Best Western Hotels & Resorts company nor Marriott Hotels company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Best Western Hotels & Resorts nor Marriott Hotels holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Best Western Hotels & Resorts company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Marriott Hotels company.

Marriott Hotels company employs more people globally than Best Western Hotels & Resorts company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Best Western Hotels & Resorts nor Marriott Hotels holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Best Western Hotels & Resorts nor Marriott Hotels holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Best Western Hotels & Resorts nor Marriott Hotels holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Best Western Hotels & Resorts nor Marriott Hotels holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Best Western Hotels & Resorts nor Marriott Hotels holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Best Western Hotels & Resorts nor Marriott Hotels 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