Comparison Overview
Fidelity Investments

Fidelity Investments
245 Summer St, Boston, 02210, US
Last Update: 12/09/2026
Fidelity’s mission is to strengthen the financial well-being of our customers and deliver better outcomes for the clients and businesses we serve. Fidelity’s strength comes from the scale of our diversified, market-leading financial services businesses that serve indivi...

XP Inc.
Avenida Chedid Jafet 75, Torre sul 30º andar, São Paulo, São Paulo, BR, 04551-065
Last Update: 21/09/2026
A XP Inc. é uma das maiores instituições financeiras independente do Brasil, dona das marcas XP, Rico, Clear, XP Educação, InfoMoney, entre outras. Com mais de 4,8 milhões de clientes ativos e um valor superior a R$ 2,2 trilhão de ativos sob custódia, há 25 anos vem tra...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Fidelity Investments







XP Inc.






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
Fidelity Investments has 42.86% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for XP Inc. in 2026.
Incident History - Fidelity Investments (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Fidelity Investments cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - XP Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)
XP Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Fidelity Investments

XP Inc.
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.
Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.
A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.
Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.