Comparison Overview

Coach

VS

J.Crew

Coach

10 Hudson Yards, New York, NY, US, 10001
Last Update: 2026-01-19
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: 12,832
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

J.Crew

225 Liberty St, New York, New York, US, 10281
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Since 1983, we’ve been designing pieces that feel both familiar and refreshingly new, crafted with unbeatable quality and distinctive point of view...it’s no wonder we’ve been in your closet for four decades and counting. Today, we continue to do the classics our way, inspiring not only how you shop but also how you express your personal style. Our commitment runs deeper than just making great clothes—we're proud of our role in getting you dressed with confidence, character and the unique style sensibility that makes us who we are.

NAICS: 448
NAICS Definition: Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees: 14,035
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/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/j-crew.jpeg
J.Crew
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
J.Crew
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 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for J.Crew in 2026.

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

Coach cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — J.Crew (X = Date, Y = Severity)

J.Crew 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/j-crew.jpeg
J.Crew
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2019
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, J.Crew company and Coach company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither J.Crew company nor Coach company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

Neither J.Crew company nor Coach company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Coach company nor J.Crew company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Coach nor J.Crew holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Coach company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to J.Crew company.

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

Neither Coach nor J.Crew holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Coach nor J.Crew holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Coach nor J.Crew holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Coach nor J.Crew holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Coach nor J.Crew holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Coach nor J.Crew 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.