Comparison Overview

EyeMed Vision Care

VS

Sedgwick

EyeMed Vision Care

4000 Luxottica Place, Cincinnati, 45040, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 700 and 749

EyeMed Vision Care is a leader in vision insurance benefits. We deliver stand-out vision benefits centered around an outstanding member experience. EyeMed boasts America’s largest vision network with a diverse network of independent ODs, retail and online providers. No wonder 99% of clients agree we deliver value, that’s why nearly 98% of EyeMed members use their benefits in network. EyeMed is a Top-Tier Partner of the OneSight EssilorLuxottica foundation, a registered charitable organization that helps create access to vision care for people in need globally. EyeMed is based in Cincinnati, Ohio. Learn more at eyemed.com

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 618
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Sedgwick

US
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 650 and 699

Sedgwick is the world’s leading risk and claims administration partner, helping clients thrive by navigating the unexpected. The company’s expertise, combined with the most advanced AI-enabled technology available, sets the standard for solutions in claims administration, loss adjusting, benefits administration and product recall. With over 33,000 colleagues and 10,000 clients across 80 countries, Sedgwick provides unmatched perspective, caring that counts, and solutions for the rapidly changing and complex risk landscape.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 22,216
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/eyemed-vision-care.jpeg
EyeMed Vision Care
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/sedgwick.jpeg
Sedgwick
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
EyeMed Vision Care
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Sedgwick
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for EyeMed Vision Care in 2026.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sedgwick in 2026.

Incident History — EyeMed Vision Care (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EyeMed Vision Care cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Sedgwick cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/eyemed-vision-care.jpeg
EyeMed Vision Care
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing (compromised shared email inbox with weak password)
Motivation: Financial Gain (data exfiltration for fraud/identity theft)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sedgwick.jpeg
Sedgwick
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial gain (double extortion)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

EyeMed Vision Care company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Sedgwick company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Sedgwick company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to EyeMed Vision Care company.

In the current year, Sedgwick company and EyeMed Vision Care company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Sedgwick company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while EyeMed Vision Care company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Sedgwick company and EyeMed Vision Care company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Sedgwick company nor EyeMed Vision Care company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither EyeMed Vision Care company nor Sedgwick company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither EyeMed Vision Care nor Sedgwick holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Sedgwick company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to EyeMed Vision Care company.

Sedgwick company employs more people globally than EyeMed Vision Care company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither EyeMed Vision Care nor Sedgwick holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither EyeMed Vision Care nor Sedgwick holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither EyeMed Vision Care nor Sedgwick holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither EyeMed Vision Care nor Sedgwick holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither EyeMed Vision Care nor Sedgwick holds HIPAA certification.

Neither EyeMed Vision Care nor Sedgwick 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.