Comparison Overview

First Republic

VS

LPL Financial

First Republic

111 Pine St, San Francisco, 94111, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

First Republic is now part of JPMorgan Chase. Our commitment to provide extraordinary client service has not changed. Our mission continues to be understanding your individual needs and responding with personalized solutions. Our service model is now backed by the strength and stability of JPMorgan Chase, an institution that has been a leader in financial services for more than 200 years. Website: www.firstrepublic.com See full social media terms and conditions at chase.com/socialterms.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 1,513
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

LPL Financial

4707 Executive Drive, San Diego, CA, US, 92121-1968
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 700 and 749

LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) is among the fastest growing wealth management firms in the U.S. As a leader in the financial advisor-mediated marketplace, LPL supports over 29,000 financial advisors and the wealth management practices of approximately 1,100 financial institutions, servicing and custodying approximately $1.9 trillion in brokerage and advisory assets on behalf of approximately 7 million Americans. The firm provides a wide range of advisor affiliation models, investment solutions, fintech tools and practice management services, ensuring that advisors and institutions have the flexibility to choose the business model, services, and technology resources they need to run thriving businesses.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 14,318
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/first-republic.jpeg
First Republic
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/lpl-financial.jpeg
LPL Financial
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
First Republic
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
LPL Financial
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for First Republic in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

LPL Financial has 12.28% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — First Republic (X = Date, Y = Severity)

First Republic cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — LPL Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LPL Financial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/first-republic.jpeg
First Republic
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2012
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lpl-financial.jpeg
LPL Financial
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Compromised Online Accounts, Phishing Email, Unauthorized Email Access
Motivation: Financial Gain (Pump-and-Dump Scheme), Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Email Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

First Republic company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to LPL Financial company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

LPL Financial company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to First Republic company.

In the current year, LPL Financial company has reported more cyber incidents than First Republic company.

Neither LPL Financial company nor First Republic company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both LPL Financial company and First Republic company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither LPL Financial company nor First Republic company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither First Republic company nor LPL Financial company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither First Republic nor LPL Financial holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

LPL Financial company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to First Republic company.

LPL Financial company employs more people globally than First Republic company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither First Republic nor LPL Financial holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither First Republic nor LPL Financial holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither First Republic nor LPL Financial holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither First Republic nor LPL Financial holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither First Republic nor LPL Financial holds HIPAA certification.

Neither First Republic nor LPL Financial 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