Comparison Overview

Citi

VS

LPL Financial

Citi

388 Greenwich Street, New York, New York, US, 10013
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849

Citi's mission is to serve as a trusted partner to our clients by responsibly providing financial services that enable growth and economic progress. Our core activities are safeguarding assets, lending money, making payments and accessing the capital markets on behalf of our clients. We have over 200 years of experience helping our clients meet the world's toughest challenges and embrace its greatest opportunities. We are Citi, the global bank – an institution connecting millions of people across hundreds of countries and cities. For information on Citi’s commitment to privacy, visit on.citi/privacy.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 197,159
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

LPL Financial

4707 Executive Drive, San Diego, CA, US, 92121-1968
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) is among the fastest growing wealth management firms in the U.S. As a leader in the financial advisor-mediated marketplace, LPL supports over 29,000 financial advisors and the wealth management practices of approximately 1,100 financial institutions, servicing and custodying approximately $1.9 trillion in brokerage and advisory assets on behalf of approximately 7 million Americans. The firm provides a wide range of advisor affiliation models, investment solutions, fintech tools and practice management services, ensuring that advisors and institutions have the flexibility to choose the business model, services, and technology resources they need to run thriving businesses.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 14,111
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/citi.jpeg
Citi
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/lpl-financial.jpeg
LPL Financial
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
Citi
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
LPL Financial
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Citi in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LPL Financial in 2025.

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

Citi cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — LPL Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LPL Financial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/citi.jpeg
Citi
Incidents

Date Detected: 02/2022
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Email
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2013
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Accidental Exposure
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lpl-financial.jpeg
LPL Financial
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Email Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2012
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Theft of Employee's Desktop Computer
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

LPL Financial company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Citi company.

In the current year, LPL Financial company and Citi company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither LPL Financial company nor Citi company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both LPL Financial company and Citi company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Citi company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while LPL Financial company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Citi company nor LPL Financial company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Citi nor LPL Financial holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Citi company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to LPL Financial company.

Citi company employs more people globally than LPL Financial company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Citi nor LPL Financial holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Citi nor LPL Financial holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Citi nor LPL Financial holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Citi nor LPL Financial holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Citi nor LPL Financial holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Citi nor LPL Financial 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