Comparison Overview

Concert Health

VS

Psyomics

Concert Health

None, None, San Diego, California, US, 92101
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Through Collaborative Care Management (CoCM), an evidence-based model for treating depression and anxiety in primary care settings, Concert makes it easy for primary care and women’s health physicians to deliver high-quality behavioral health care, improve clinical outcomes, and take advantage of new CoCM reimbursement opportunities. Concert’s turnkey behavioral health services, which include an expert clinical team powered by a powerful technology platform, are available through partnerships with medical groups and health systems in 13 states: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Washington and Georgia.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 258
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Psyomics

St Johns Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, GB, CB4 0WS
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 750 and 799

At Psyomics, we’re helping people get the mental health support they need, sooner. Led by CEO Dr Melinda Rees, Psyomics aims to revolutionise the way we assess, diagnose, triage, and treat mental health. Cambridge University Biotech spinout turned Healthtech, Psyomics was founded by Professor Sabine Bahn, Laboratory Director at the Cambridge Centre for Neuropsychiatric Research. Following more than six years of research and development, the Psyomics Platform significantly reduces clinical triage and assessment time through dynamic patient-reported information capture. Launching in late 2022 for the assessment and triage of 15+ mental health conditions, used by more than 8,500 patients to date.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 28
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/concert-health-inc.jpeg
Concert Health
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/psyomics.jpeg
Psyomics
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
Concert Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Psyomics
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Concert Health in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Psyomics in 2026.

Incident History — Concert Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Concert Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Psyomics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/concert-health-inc.jpeg
Concert Health
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/psyomics.jpeg
Psyomics
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Concert Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Psyomics company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Psyomics company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Concert Health company.

In the current year, Psyomics company and Concert Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Psyomics company nor Concert Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Psyomics company nor Concert Health company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Psyomics company nor Concert Health company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Concert Health company nor Psyomics company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Concert Health nor Psyomics holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Concert Health company nor Psyomics company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Concert Health company employs more people globally than Psyomics company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Concert Health nor Psyomics holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Concert Health nor Psyomics holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Concert Health nor Psyomics holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Concert Health nor Psyomics holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Concert Health nor Psyomics holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Concert Health nor Psyomics holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N