Comparison Overview

Glovo

VS

Rover.com

Glovo

Carrer de Llull, 108, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08005, ES
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

Glovo is a pioneering multi-category app connecting users with businesses, and couriers, offering on-demand services from local restaurants, grocers and supermarkets, and high street retail stores. Glovo’s vision is to give everyone easy access to everything within their city, so that our users can enjoy what they want, when they want, where they want. Founded in 2015 in Barcelona, it operates across 25 countries in Europe, Central Asia and Africa.

NAICS: 81
NAICS Definition: Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees: 11,687
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Rover.com

720 Olive Way, Seattle, Washington, US, 98101
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

At Rover, everyone has ownership of their work and the opportunity to make a true impact. We believe that being diverse and inclusive is key to our success and encourage every employee to share their unique perspective while being their true self. We believe everyone deserves the unconditional love of a pet, and Rover exists to make it easier to experience that love. We’re supporting dog owners and empowering dog sitters to run thriving pet-care businesses in your neighborhoods. The Rover app and website connect dog and cat parents with loving pet sitters and dog walkers in neighborhoods across the US, Canada, and Europe.

NAICS: 81
NAICS Definition: Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees: 10,830
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/glovo-app.jpeg
Glovo
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/roverdotcom.jpeg
Rover.com
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
Glovo
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Rover.com
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Consumer Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Glovo in 2025.

Incidents vs Consumer Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rover.com in 2025.

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

Glovo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Rover.com (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rover.com cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/glovo-app.jpeg
Glovo
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/roverdotcom.jpeg
Rover.com
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Rover.com company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Glovo company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Glovo company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Rover.com company has not reported any.

In the current year, Rover.com company and Glovo company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Rover.com company nor Glovo company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Glovo company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Rover.com company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Rover.com company nor Glovo company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Glovo company nor Rover.com company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Glovo nor Rover.com holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Glovo company nor Rover.com company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Glovo company employs more people globally than Rover.com company, reflecting its scale as a Consumer Services.

Neither Glovo nor Rover.com holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Glovo nor Rover.com holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Glovo nor Rover.com holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Glovo nor Rover.com holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Glovo nor Rover.com holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Glovo nor Rover.com holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H