Comparison Overview

Coach

VS

Forever 21

Coach

10 Hudson Yards, New York, NY, 10001, US
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

Coach was founded in 1941 as a family-run workshop. In a Manhattan loft, six artisans handcrafted a collection of leather goods using skills handed down from generation to generation. Discerning consumers soon began to seek out the quality and unique nature of Coach craftsmanship. Now greatly expanded, Coach is a modern American luxury brand with a rich heritage of craftsmanship and New York style. We continue to maintain the highest standards for materials and workmanship. Coach's exceptional workforce remains committed to carefully upholding the principles of quality and integrity that define the company. We attribute the prominence of the Coach brand to the unique combination of our original American attitude and design, our heritage of fine leather goods and custom fabrics, our superior product quality and durability, and our commitment to customer service.

NAICS: 448
NAICS Definition: Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees: 11,785
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Forever 21

3880 Mission Road, None, Los Angeles, CA, US, 90031
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 650 and 699

Forever 21 continues to be a fashion industry leader with a mission to make the latest trends accessible to all. F21 persists on staying ahead of innovation and providing styles and fit that our customers love. While reinventing for now and beyond, we’re seeking passionate and creative new family members to join us on this adventure! F21 continues to operate E-commerce and 450 locations across the U.S. along with maintaining a strong brand DNA with consumers and within the fashion industry. In February 2020, Forever 21 came under new ownership made up of Simon Property Group, Brookfield Property Partners, and Authentic Brands Group. Under this new ownership F21 has the financial strength and long term view that will prepare us for the future, while continuing to set the same high standards as it always has. Join our team and learn the inner sanctum of the global fashion industry, while we build the new Forever 21! Forever 21 is operated by SPARC Group LLC. About SPARC Group LLC SPARC Group LLC offers operational and strategic expertise including retail and e-commerce management, sourcing, design and technology for leading global brands. SPARC Group is a joint venture between Simon Property Group, a preeminent retail real estate company and Authentic Brands Group, a global leader in brand development. In addition to Forever 21, SPARC Group brands include Aéropostale, Brooks Brothers, Nautica, Eddie Bauer, and Lucky Brand. SPARC Group LLC is an equal opportunity employer, and is committed to maintaining a workplace free from prohibited employment conduct, including discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, disability, genetic information, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, domestic partner status, civil partnership, status as a covered veteran, status in the Uniformed Services of the United States, citizenship and any other characteristic protected by law.

NAICS: 448
NAICS Definition: Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees: 19,422
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coach.jpeg
Coach
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/forever-21.jpeg
Forever 21
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
Coach
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Forever 21
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Coach in 2025.

Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Forever 21 in 2025.

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

Coach cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Forever 21 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Forever 21 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coach.jpeg
Coach
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/forever-21.jpeg
Forever 21
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: External Hacking
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Malware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Coach company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Forever 21 company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Forever 21 company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Coach company has not reported any.

In the current year, Forever 21 company and Coach company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Forever 21 company nor Coach company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Forever 21 company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Coach company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Forever 21 company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Coach company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Coach company nor Forever 21 company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Coach nor Forever 21 holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Coach company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Forever 21 company.

Forever 21 company employs more people globally than Coach company, reflecting its scale as a Retail Apparel and Fashion.

Neither Coach nor Forever 21 holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Coach nor Forever 21 holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Coach nor Forever 21 holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Coach nor Forever 21 holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Coach nor Forever 21 holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Coach nor Forever 21 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