Comparison Overview

Danaher Corporation

VS

Stryker

Danaher Corporation

2200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, District of Columbia, 20037, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.danaher.com

Danaher is a leading global life sciences and diagnostics innovator, committed to accelerating the power of science and technology to improve human health. We partner with customers across the globe to help them solve their most complex challenges, architecting solutions that bring the power of science to life. Our global teams are pioneering what’s next across Life Sciences, Diagnostics, Biotechnology and beyond. For more information, visit www.danaher.com.

NAICS: 3391
NAICS Definition: Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees: 53,849
Subsidiaries: 43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Stryker

2825 Airview Boulevard, Kalamazoo, MI, US, 49002
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849
http://www.stryker.com

Stryker is a global leader in medical technologies and, together with our customers, we are driven to make healthcare better. We offer innovative products and services in MedSurg, Neurotechnology and Orthopaedics that help improve patient and healthcare outcomes. Alongside its customers around the world, Stryker impacts more than 150 million patients annually. More information is available at stryker.com and careers.stryker.com. Facts: ● 2024 Sales: $22.6 billion ● Industry: Medical Instruments & Supplies ● Employees: 53,000 worldwide ● 40 years of sales growth leading up to 2020 ● 44+ Manufacturing and R&D Locations Worldwide ● $1.5 billion spent on research and development in 2024 ● ~14,200 patents owned globally in 2024 ● Products sold in ~75 countries ● Fortune 500 Company ● 7 consecutive years as one of Fortune's World's Best Workplaces Stryker’s social media community guidelines: https://www.stryker.com/content/m/legal/social-media-community-guidelines/en/index.html Notice Regarding Employee Conduct on Facebook/LinkedIn Meta/LinkedIn does not permit employers to verify or validate “employees” in the (META: “Works at” LinkedIn: “Experience”) section of users’ profiles. Please be aware that the views expressed by individuals on their personal accounts and do not necessarily represent the views of our company. If you encounter any issues with a person claiming to be our employee, we recommend using the “Report Profile” feature. If you’d like to report concerns to our Ethics Hotline, you may do so at: https://app.convercent.com/en-us/LandingPage/b6bb4e84-9fcb-ea11-a974-000d3ab9f296

NAICS: 3391
NAICS Definition: Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees: 46,799
Subsidiaries: 39
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/danaher.jpeg
Danaher Corporation
—
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/stryker.jpeg
Stryker
—
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
Danaher Corporation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Stryker
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Danaher Corporation in 2025.

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Stryker in 2025.

Incident History — Danaher Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Danaher Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Stryker cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/danaher.jpeg
Danaher Corporation
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/stryker.jpeg
Stryker
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Stryker company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Danaher Corporation company has not reported any.

In the current year, Stryker company and Danaher Corporation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Stryker company nor Danaher Corporation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Stryker company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Danaher Corporation company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Stryker company nor Danaher Corporation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Danaher Corporation company nor Stryker company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Stryker holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Danaher Corporation company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Stryker company.

Danaher Corporation company employs more people globally than Stryker company, reflecting its scale as a Medical Equipment Manufacturing.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Stryker holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Stryker holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Stryker holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Stryker holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Stryker holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Stryker holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

LibreChat is a ChatGPT clone with additional features. In versions 0.8.0 and below, there is no handler for JSON parsing errors; SyntaxError from express.json() includes user input in the error message, which gets reflected in responses. User input (including HTML/JavaScript) can be exposed in error responses, creating an XSS risk if Content-Type isn't strictly enforced. This issue does not have a fix at the time of publication.

Published
Date
2025-12-11
Updated
Date
2025-12-11
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/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
References
Description

LibreChat is a ChatGPT clone with additional features. In versions 0.8.0 and below, when creating prompts, JSON requests are sent to define and modify the prompts via PATCH endpoint for prompt groups (/api/prompts/groups/:groupId). However, the request bodies are not sufficiently validated for proper input, enabling users to modify prompts in a way that was not intended as part of the front end system. The patchPromptGroup function passes req.body directly to updatePromptGroup() without filtering sensitive fields. This issue is fixed in version 0.8.1.

Published
Date
2025-12-11
Updated
Date
2025-12-11
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/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
References
Description

LibreChat is a ChatGPT clone with additional features. In versions 0.8.0 and below, when a user posts a question, the iconURL parameter of the POST request can be modified by an attacker. The malicious code is then stored in the chat which can then be shared to other users. When sharing chats with a potentially malicious “tracker”, resources loaded can lead to loss of privacy for users who view the chat link that is sent to them. This issue is fixed in version 0.8.1.

Published
Date
2025-12-11
Updated
Date
2025-12-11
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
References
Description

MaxKB is an open-source AI assistant for enterprise. Versions 2.3.1 and below have improper file permissions which allow attackers to overwrite the built-in dynamic linker and other critical files, potentially resulting in privilege escalation. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.0.

Published
Date
2025-12-11
Updated
Date
2025-12-11
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

MaxKB is an open-source AI assistant for enterprise. In versions 2.3.1 and below, the tool module allows an attacker to escape the sandbox environment and escalate privileges under certain concurrent conditions. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.0.

Published
Date
2025-12-11
Updated
Date
2025-12-11
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References