Comparison Overview

Cottonwood Tucson

VS

Acadia Healthcare

Cottonwood Tucson

4110 West Sweetwater Drive, Tucson, 85745, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Mental Health recovery and Addiction recovery success is what has made Cottonwood Tucson a leader in the field of co-occurring treatment. Located in the beautiful and dramatic Sonoran Desert area of Tucson, Arizona, it is the perfect environment to deal with recovery from alcoholism, drug addiction, trauma/PTSD, anxiety disorders, and depression. Frequently one’s chemical dependency is coupled with a psychiatric or emotional illness. Cottonwood Tucson’s staff is trained to effectively manage these co-occurring disorders (dual diagnosis) by designing an individualized treatment program for each client. Cottonwood’s world renowned medical and clinical team is why our co-occurring disorder treatment program is considered by many to be among the finest in the field of behavioral health. The clinical team at Cottonwood Tucson is committed to supporting a tight continuity of care and encourages a continuing relationship between our patients and their community-based treatment providers. Our aim is to forge a lasting therapeutic alliance with all those in our care, their families and treating clinicians at home. “Cottonwood treats every patient like they are the only patient” -CARF Surveyor 2019

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 95
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Acadia Healthcare

4020 Aspen Grove Dr, 900, Franklin, Tennessee, US, 37067
Last Update: 2026-01-19

Headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee, Acadia Healthcare was established in January 2005 to develop and operate a network of behavioral health facilities across the country. Acadia Healthcare’s mission is to create a world-class organization that sets the standard of excellence in the treatment of specialty behavioral health and addiction disorders. Acadia’s management style and philosophy is one of collaboration and flexibility as we create an energetic and team-oriented service delivery system. Our organization values input from employees, physicians, and all strategic alliances. As evidenced in our mission statement, Acadia Healthcare’s mission is to create behavioral health centers where people receive care that enables them to regain hope in a supportive, caring environment. We want Acadia to be synonymous with excellent care, phenomenal customer service and an unparalleled commitment to our patients, staff, physicians, and community. As a leading provider of behavioral healthcare services in the United States and Puerto Rico, Acadia Healthcare operates 253 treatment facilities across 39 states. Our network of treatment facilities offers multiple levels of care for various behavioral health and substance use disorders. At Acadia, our primary goal is to meet patients where they’re at in their treatment process. We do this by providing a multitude of levels of care, including detoxification, residential treatment for addiction, residential treatment for dual diagnosis, acute psychiatric inpatient hospitalization, medication-assisted treatment (MAT) services, and an array of outpatient programming options, ranging from partial hospitalization programs (PHPs) and intensive outpatient programs (IOPs) to traditional outpatient services. Our network of treatment facilities creates greater access to care, reduces the stigma associated with mental illness and addiction, and offers those in our communities a safe environment in which to receive the treatment they need.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 3,167
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/cottonwood-tucson.jpeg
Cottonwood Tucson
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/acadia-healthcare.jpeg
Acadia Healthcare
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
Cottonwood Tucson
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Acadia Healthcare
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cottonwood Tucson in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Acadia Healthcare in 2026.

Incident History — Cottonwood Tucson (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cottonwood Tucson cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Acadia Healthcare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Acadia Healthcare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cottonwood-tucson.jpeg
Cottonwood Tucson
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/acadia-healthcare.jpeg
Acadia Healthcare
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Cottonwood Tucson company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Acadia Healthcare company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Acadia Healthcare company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Cottonwood Tucson company has not reported any.

In the current year, Acadia Healthcare company and Cottonwood Tucson company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Acadia Healthcare company nor Cottonwood Tucson company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Acadia Healthcare company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Cottonwood Tucson company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Acadia Healthcare company nor Cottonwood Tucson company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Cottonwood Tucson company nor Acadia Healthcare company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Cottonwood Tucson nor Acadia Healthcare holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Cottonwood Tucson company nor Acadia Healthcare company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Acadia Healthcare company employs more people globally than Cottonwood Tucson company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Cottonwood Tucson nor Acadia Healthcare holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Cottonwood Tucson nor Acadia Healthcare holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Cottonwood Tucson nor Acadia Healthcare holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Cottonwood Tucson nor Acadia Healthcare holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Cottonwood Tucson nor Acadia Healthcare holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Cottonwood Tucson nor Acadia Healthcare 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