Comparison Overview

Bloomberg

VS

Raymond James

Bloomberg

731 Lexington Ave., New York, NY, 10022, US
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 800 and 849

Bloomberg is a global leader in business and financial information, delivering trusted data, news, and insights that bring transparency, efficiency, and fairness to markets. The company helps connect influential communities across the global financial ecosystem via reliable technology solutions that enable our customers to make more informed decisions and foster better collaboration.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 24,997
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Raymond James

880 Carillon Parkway, None, St. Petersburg, Florida, US, 33716
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 1962 and a public company since 1983, Raymond James Financial, Inc. is a Florida-based diversified holding company providing financial services to individuals, corporations and municipalities through its subsidiary companies engaged primarily in investment and financial planning, in addition to capital markets and asset management. The firm's stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (RJF). Through its three broker/dealer subsidiaries, Raymond James Financial has approximately 8,700 financial advisors throughout the United States, Canada and overseas. Total client assets are $1.26 trillion (as of 10/25/2023). Raymond James has been recognized nationally for its community support and corporate philanthropy. The company has been ranked as one of the best in the country in customer service, as a great place to work and as a national leader in support of the arts.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 18,671
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bloomberg-lp.jpeg
Bloomberg
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/raymond-james-financial-inc-.jpeg
Raymond James
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
Bloomberg
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Raymond James
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bloomberg in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Raymond James in 2025.

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

Bloomberg cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Raymond James (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Raymond James cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bloomberg-lp.jpeg
Bloomberg
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2017
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Information Disclosure
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/raymond-james-financial-inc-.jpeg
Raymond James
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Misconfiguration
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Bloomberg and Raymond James have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Raymond James company and Bloomberg company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Raymond James company nor Bloomberg company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Raymond James company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Bloomberg company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Raymond James company nor Bloomberg company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Bloomberg company nor Raymond James company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Bloomberg nor Raymond James holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Bloomberg company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Raymond James company.

Bloomberg company employs more people globally than Raymond James company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Bloomberg nor Raymond James holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Bloomberg nor Raymond James holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Bloomberg nor Raymond James holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Bloomberg nor Raymond James holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Bloomberg nor Raymond James holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Bloomberg nor Raymond James 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