Comparison Overview

Charles Schwab

VS

Barclays Investment Bank

Charles Schwab

3000 Schwab Way, Westlake, Texas, US, 76262
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 750 and 799

Charles Schwab is a different kind of investment services firm – one that strives to disrupt the status quo of the traditional Wall Street approach on behalf of our clients. We believe today, as we did on Day 1, that when you find ways to improve the investing experience for your clients, then business results will follow. Follow our company culture at #SchwabLife and see how we give back at #Schwab4Good. Support hours: 7 a.m.–7 p.m. CT or 24/7 at schwab.com/contact-us. Social Media Disclosures: https://www.aboutschwab.com/social-media (#0424-TM8W)

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 33,248
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Barclays Investment Bank

745 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY, 10019, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Barclays Investment Bank deploys financial solutions to help our clients with their funding, financing, strategic and risk management needs across sectors, markets and economies. The Investment Bank is comprised of the Investment Banking, International Corporate Banking, Global Markets and Research businesses, aiding money managers, financial institutions, governments, supranational organisations and corporate clients around the globe. We offer a full spectrum of strategic advisory, financing and risk management solutions to help drive innovation and growth. For over 330 years, our commitment to shared success has been at the heart of what we do, because we are all at our best when we all progress. For further information about Barclays Investment Bank, please visit our website www.barclays.com/ib

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 21,686
Subsidiaries: 12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/charles-schwab.jpeg
Charles Schwab
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/barclays-investment-bank.jpeg
Barclays Investment 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
Charles Schwab
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Barclays Investment Bank
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

Charles Schwab has 28.21% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Barclays Investment Bank in 2025.

Incident History — Charles Schwab (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Charles Schwab cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Barclays Investment Bank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/charles-schwab.jpeg
Charles Schwab
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: SMS Phishing (Smishing), Mobile Phishing Kits (Telegram-distributed), Spoofed Brokerage Alerts (iMessage/RCS), One-Time Passcode (OTP) Interception, Compromised Mobile Wallets (Apple/Google Pay), Coordinated Trading via Hijacked Accounts
Motivation: Financial Gain (Stock Price Manipulation), Fraudulent E-Commerce/Tap-to-Pay Transactions, Sale of Compromised Accounts/Devices on Dark Web, Exploitation of Cross-Border Regulatory Gaps
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Insider Wrongdoing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Disclosure
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/barclays-investment-bank.jpeg
Barclays Investment Bank
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Barclays Investment Bank company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Charles Schwab company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Charles Schwab company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Barclays Investment Bank company has not reported any.

In the current year, Charles Schwab company has reported more cyber incidents than Barclays Investment Bank company.

Neither Barclays Investment Bank company nor Charles Schwab company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Charles Schwab company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Barclays Investment Bank company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Charles Schwab company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Barclays Investment Bank company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Charles Schwab company nor Barclays Investment Bank company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Charles Schwab nor Barclays Investment Bank holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Barclays Investment Bank company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Charles Schwab company.

Charles Schwab company employs more people globally than Barclays Investment Bank company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Charles Schwab nor Barclays Investment Bank holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Charles Schwab nor Barclays Investment Bank holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Charles Schwab nor Barclays Investment Bank holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Charles Schwab nor Barclays Investment Bank holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Charles Schwab nor Barclays Investment Bank holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Charles Schwab nor Barclays Investment Bank 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