Comparison Overview

Express Employment International

VS

Adecco

Express Employment International

9701 Boardwalk Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK, US, 73162
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Founded in 1983 and corporately headquartered in Oklahoma City, Express Employment International supports the Express Employment Professionals franchise and related brands. The Express franchise brand is an industry-leading, international staffing company with franchise locations across the U.S., Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Express International boasts a team of more than 500 professionals in Oklahoma City, and a network of sales and support teams internationally. Express Employment Professionals, our flagship franchise, has more than 870 franchise locations and began franchising in 1985 to deliver staffing support and human resource services through a network of franchise office owners. Express helps people find good jobs and companies find good people, and offers a full range of employment solutions, including evaluation hire, temporary staffing, professional search, and human resources for businesses around the globe. Focusing on a wide range of positions, Express' long-term goal is to put a million people to work annually.

NAICS: 5613
NAICS Definition: Employment Services
Employees: 13,936
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Adecco

Bellerivestrasse 30, Zurich, 8008, CH
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 800 and 849

Perfect placements. Speedy staffing. Tenacious testing. Who’s Adecco, we hear you ask? Only the top provider of first-class HR solutions. Our consultants work with some of the best, and most exciting, companies all over the world. We equip our clients with priceless industry insight and put everything we’ve got into training and mentoring our candidates. We’re here to match talented people with the job opportunities and employers they’re looking for. On any given day we connect over 700,000 people with fulfilling opportunities that make the most of their skills now and enable them to develop new expertise for the future.

NAICS: 5613
NAICS Definition: Employment Services
Employees: 198,485
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/expressemploymentinternational.jpeg
Express Employment International
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/adecco.jpeg
Adecco
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
Express Employment International
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Adecco
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Staffing and Recruiting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Express Employment International in 2026.

Incidents vs Staffing and Recruiting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Adecco in 2026.

Incident History — Express Employment International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Express Employment International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Adecco cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/expressemploymentinternational.jpeg
Express Employment International
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/adecco.jpeg
Adecco
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Adecco company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Express Employment International company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Adecco company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Express Employment International company.

In the current year, Adecco company and Express Employment International company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Adecco company nor Express Employment International company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Adecco company nor Express Employment International company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Adecco company nor Express Employment International company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Express Employment International company nor Adecco company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Express Employment International nor Adecco holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Adecco company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Express Employment International company.

Adecco company employs more people globally than Express Employment International company, reflecting its scale as a Staffing and Recruiting.

Neither Express Employment International nor Adecco holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Express Employment International nor Adecco holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Express Employment International nor Adecco holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Express Employment International nor Adecco holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Express Employment International nor Adecco holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Express Employment International nor Adecco 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