Comparison Overview

Care.com

VS

Glovo

Care.com

2801 N Central Expy, 11th Floor, Dallas, Texas, US, 75204
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Care.com is where families go to find care and where caregivers go to find meaningful work. Since 2007, over 45 million people have turned to Care.com—across child care, senior care, adult care, pet care and housekeeping. We’re here to make care simpler, smarter and more personal. Through Care for Business, Care.com empowers over 700 companies to provide family care benefits to their employees. With HomePay, we make it easier for families to manage household taxes and payroll. As moms, dads, pet parents, sons and daughters ourselves, we’re a passionate team of innovators and problem-solvers. We utilize data, AI and cutting-edge solutions to address universal care challenges and build connections. If you’re driven to apply your talents where innovative tech meets heart and want to contribute to a platform that has supported millions of families (and counting!), explore a career with us. Care.com is proud to be part of the IAC family.

NAICS: 81
NAICS Definition: Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees: 12,479
Subsidiaries: 26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Glovo

Carrer de Llull, 108, Barcelona, Catalonia, ES, 08005
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

Glovo is a pioneering multi-category app connecting users with businesses, and couriers, offering on-demand services from local restaurants, grocers and supermarkets, and high street retail stores. Glovo’s vision is to give everyone easy access to everything within their city, so that our users can enjoy what they want, when they want, where they want. Founded in 2015 in Barcelona, it operates across 22 countries in Europe, Central Asia and Africa.

NAICS: 81
NAICS Definition: Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees: 13,964
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/caredotcom.jpeg
Care.com
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/glovo-app.jpeg
Glovo
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
Care.com
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Glovo
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Consumer Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Care.com in 2026.

Incidents vs Consumer Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Glovo in 2026.

Incident History — Care.com (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Care.com cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Glovo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/caredotcom.jpeg
Care.com
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/glovo-app.jpeg
Glovo
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Glovo company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Care.com company has not reported any.

In the current year, Glovo company and Care.com company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Glovo company nor Care.com company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Glovo company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Care.com company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Glovo company nor Care.com company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Care.com company nor Glovo company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Care.com nor Glovo holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Care.com company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Glovo company.

Glovo company employs more people globally than Care.com company, reflecting its scale as a Consumer Services.

Neither Care.com nor Glovo holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Care.com nor Glovo holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Care.com nor Glovo holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Care.com nor Glovo holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Care.com nor Glovo holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Care.com nor Glovo holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Typemill is a flat-file, Markdown-based CMS designed for informational documentation websites. A reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exists in the login error view template `login.twig` of versions 2.19.1 and below. The `username` value can be echoed back without proper contextual encoding when authentication fails. An attacker can execute script in the login page context. This issue has been fixed in version 2.19.2.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

A DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the DomainCheckerApp class within domain/script.js of Sourcecodester Domain Availability Checker v1.0. The vulnerability occurs because the application improperly handles user-supplied data in the createResultElement method by using the unsafe innerHTML property to render domain search results.

Description

A Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in Sourcecodester Modern Image Gallery App v1.0 within the gallery/upload.php component. The application fails to properly validate uploaded file contents. Additionally, the application preserves the user-supplied file extension during the save process. This allows an unauthenticated attacker to upload arbitrary PHP code by spoofing the MIME type as an image, leading to full system compromise.

Description

A UNIX symbolic link following issue in the jailer component in Firecracker version v1.13.1 and earlier and 1.14.0 on Linux may allow a local host user with write access to the pre-created jailer directories to overwrite arbitrary host files via a symlink attack during the initialization copy at jailer startup, if the jailer is executed with root privileges. To mitigate this issue, users should upgrade to version v1.13.2 or 1.14.1 or above.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/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

An information disclosure vulnerability exists in the /srvs/membersrv/getCashiers endpoint of the Aptsys gemscms backend platform thru 2025-05-28. This unauthenticated endpoint returns a list of cashier accounts, including names, email addresses, usernames, and passwords hashed using MD5. As MD5 is a broken cryptographic function, the hashes can be easily reversed using public tools, exposing user credentials in plaintext. This allows remote attackers to perform unauthorized logins and potentially gain access to sensitive POS operations or backend functions.