Comparison Overview

Coppel

VS

Acosta

Coppel

República 2855 pte, Recursos Hidráulicos, Culiacan, Sinaloa, MX, 80105
Last Update: 2026-01-24

Coppel es una empresa mexicana con sede en la ciudad de Culiacán, que ha sido fundada en 1941. Es una cadena comercial de tiendas departamentales de ventas a través del otorgamiento de créditos con pocos requisitos, y repartos gratuitos. En la actualidad cuenta con mas de 1000 puntos de venta, distribuidos alrededor de la república Mexicana, Brasil y Argentina.

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 30,592
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Acosta

6651 Gate Pkwy, Jacksonville, 32256, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Acosta brings simplicity to retail sales. We act as a catalyst to boldly connect brands, retailers and consumers, fueling growth and building long-term value throughout North America and Europe. We are deeply embedded in every corner of the retail industry, strengthening the local, regional and national relationships between brands and retailers.​ Our team of experts uses deep industry insight, cutting-edge analytics and integrated partnerships to help our clients move ahead with confidence.

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 13,177
Subsidiaries: 26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coppel-sa-de-cv.jpeg
Coppel
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/acosta.jpeg
Acosta
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
Coppel
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Acosta
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Coppel in 2026.

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Acosta in 2026.

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

Coppel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Acosta cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coppel-sa-de-cv.jpeg
Coppel
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/acosta.jpeg
Acosta
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Disclosure
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Acosta company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Coppel company has not reported any.

In the current year, Acosta company and Coppel company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Acosta company nor Coppel company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Acosta company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Coppel company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Acosta company nor Coppel company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Coppel company nor Acosta company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Coppel nor Acosta holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Acosta company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Coppel company.

Coppel company employs more people globally than Acosta company, reflecting its scale as a Retail.

Neither Coppel nor Acosta holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Coppel nor Acosta holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Coppel nor Acosta holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Coppel nor Acosta holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Coppel nor Acosta holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Coppel nor Acosta 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.