Comparison Overview

Cigna Healthcare

VS

Mercy

Cigna Healthcare

900 Cottage Grove Road, Bloomfield, 06002, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849

We are a health benefits provider that advocates for better health through every stage of life. We guide our customers through the health care system, empowering them with the information and insight they need to improve their health and vitality.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 29,554
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Mercy

15740 South Outer Forty Road, None, Chesterfield, Missouri, US, 63017
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

Mercy, one of the 15 largest U.S. health systems and named the top large system in the U.S. for excellent patient experience by NRC Health, serves millions annually with nationally recognized care and one of the nation’s largest and highest performing Accountable Care Organizations in quality and cost. Mercy is a highly integrated, multi-state health care system including 50 acute care and specialty (heart, children’s, orthopedic and rehab) hospitals, convenient and urgent care locations, imaging centers and pharmacies. Mercy has over 1,000 physician practice locations and outpatient facilities, more than 5,000 physicians and advanced practitioners and more than 50,000 co-workers serving patients and families across Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma. Mercy also has clinics, outpatient services and outreach ministries in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. In fiscal year 2024 alone, Mercy provided nearly half a billion dollars of free care and other community benefits, including traditional charity care and unreimbursed Medicaid.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 28,945
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cigna.jpeg
Cigna Healthcare
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/mercy.jpeg
Mercy
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
Cigna Healthcare
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Mercy
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cigna Healthcare in 2025.

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mercy in 2025.

Incident History — Cigna Healthcare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cigna Healthcare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Mercy cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cigna.jpeg
Cigna Healthcare
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2012
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2008
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mercy.jpeg
Mercy
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Cigna Healthcare company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Mercy company has not reported any.

In the current year, Mercy company and Cigna Healthcare company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Mercy company nor Cigna Healthcare company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Cigna Healthcare company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Mercy company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Mercy company nor Cigna Healthcare company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Cigna Healthcare company nor Mercy company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Cigna Healthcare nor Mercy holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both Mercy company and Cigna Healthcare company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

Cigna Healthcare company employs more people globally than Mercy company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Cigna Healthcare nor Mercy holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Cigna Healthcare nor Mercy holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Cigna Healthcare nor Mercy holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Cigna Healthcare nor Mercy holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Cigna Healthcare nor Mercy holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Cigna Healthcare nor Mercy holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N