Comparison Overview

Edward Jones

VS

Marsh McLennan

Edward Jones

12555 Manchester Road, St. Louis, MO, US, 63131
Last Update: 2026-01-19

Edward Jones is a leading North American financial services firm in the U.S. and through its affiliate in Canada. The firm’s more than 20,000 financial advisors throughout North America serve more than 9 million clients with a total of $2.2 trillion in client assets under care as of December 31, 2024. Edward Jones' purpose is to partner for positive impact to improve the lives of its clients and colleagues, and together, better our communities and society. Through the dedication of the firm's approximately 54,000 associates and our branch presence in 68% of U.S. counties and most Canadian provinces and territories, the firm is committed to helping more people achieve financially what is most important to them. The Edward Jones website is at www.edwardjones.com, and its recruiting website is www.careers.edwardjones.com. Member SIPC.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 44,970
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Marsh McLennan

1166 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, US, 10036
Last Update: 2026-01-16

Marsh McLennan (NYSE: MMC) is a global leader in risk, strategy and people, advising clients in 130 countries across four businesses: Marsh, Guy Carpenter, Mercer and Oliver Wyman. With annual revenue of $23 billion and more than 85,000 colleagues, Marsh McLennan helps build the confidence to thrive through the power of perspective. Follow us on X at @MarshMcLennan.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 47,107
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/edward-jones.jpeg
Edward Jones
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/marshmclennan.jpeg
Marsh McLennan
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
Edward Jones
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Marsh McLennan
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Edward Jones in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Marsh McLennan in 2026.

Incident History — Edward Jones (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Edward Jones cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Marsh McLennan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marsh McLennan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/edward-jones.jpeg
Edward Jones
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Accidental Data Exposure
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/marshmclennan.jpeg
Marsh McLennan
Incidents

Date Detected: 04/2021
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2013
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Marsh McLennan company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Edward Jones company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Marsh McLennan company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Edward Jones company.

In the current year, Marsh McLennan company and Edward Jones company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Marsh McLennan company nor Edward Jones company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Marsh McLennan company and Edward Jones company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Marsh McLennan company nor Edward Jones company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Edward Jones company nor Marsh McLennan company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Edward Jones nor Marsh McLennan holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Edward Jones company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Marsh McLennan company.

Marsh McLennan company employs more people globally than Edward Jones company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Edward Jones nor Marsh McLennan holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Marsh McLennan holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Marsh McLennan holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Marsh McLennan holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Marsh McLennan holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Marsh McLennan 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