Comparison Overview

Capita

VS

Hitachi

Capita

2 Kingdom Street, First Floor, London, England, GB, W2 6BD
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 550 and 599

Capita is an outsourcer, helping clients across the public and private sectors run complex business processes more efficiently, creating better consumer experiences. Operating across eight countries, Capita’s 34,000 colleagues support primarily UK and European clients with people-based services underpinned by market-leading technology. We’re a vital support service for our clients, enabling the everyday interactions that we expect to run seamlessly, to run seamlessly. A publicly listed business with adjusted revenue of £2.4bn, Capita’s areas of focus are Central Government, Local Public Service, Defence, Learning, Fire & Security, Contact Centres and Pensions Solutions. We’re embracing change to respond to the ever-changing needs of society, creating better outcomes for all our stakeholders.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 25,672
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Hitachi

1-6-6, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, None, Tokyo, Japan, JP, 100-8280
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 800 and 849

Since its founding in 1910, Hitachi has responded to the expectations of society and its customers through technology and innovation. Our mission is to “Contribute to society through the development of superior, original technology and products.” Over the past 100+ years this commitment has led us to work towards creating a more sustainable society through our “Social Innovation Business”. We work to apply our expertise in information technology (IT), operational technology (OT), and a wide variety of products to advance social infrastructure systems and improve quality of life across the world. Hitachi’s Social Innovation Business is centered around 5 growth sectors: Mobility, Smart Life, Industry, Energy, and IT. Globally, we have nearly 300,000 employees who are working to improve people’s quality of life and our customers’ social, environmental, and economic values to create a sustainable future. The challenges we face as a society are unprecedented, but so are the opportunities. Together, let’s start powering good.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 36,169
Subsidiaries: 18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/capita.jpeg
Capita
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/hitachi.jpeg
Hitachi
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
Capita
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Hitachi
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Capita in 2025.

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hitachi in 2025.

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

Capita cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Hitachi cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/capita.jpeg
Capita
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Access to internal Microsoft Office 365 apps
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2023
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Malicious File Download (Phishing/Social Engineering)
Motivation: Financial Gain (Ransom Demand, Data Exfiltration for Leverage)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hitachi.jpeg
Hitachi
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Stolen credentials, Vulnerability exploitation, Phishing
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Radio Frequency (RF) communications
Motivation: Disruption of operations, brake system failures
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Capita and Hitachi have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Hitachi company has reported more cyber incidents than Capita company.

Both Hitachi company and Capita company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

Capita company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Hitachi company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Hitachi company nor Capita company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Hitachi company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Capita company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Capita nor Hitachi holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Hitachi company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Capita company.

Hitachi company employs more people globally than Capita company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither Capita nor Hitachi holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Capita nor Hitachi holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Capita nor Hitachi holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Capita nor Hitachi holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Capita nor Hitachi holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Capita nor Hitachi 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