Comparison Overview

Grafana Labs

VS

Google

Grafana Labs

29 Broadway, New York, 10006, US
Last Update: 2025-12-02
Between 750 and 799

Grafana Labs provides an open and composable observability stack built around Grafana, the leading open source technology for dashboards and visualization. There are 5,000+ Grafana Labs customers, including Bloomberg, Citigroup, Dell Technologies, Salesforce, and TomTom, and 25M+ Grafana users around the world. Grafana Labs helps companies achieve their observability goals with the LGTM Stack, which features scalable metrics (Grafana Mimir), logs (Grafana Loki), and traces (Grafana Tempo) as well as extensive enterprise data source plugins, dashboard management, alerting, reporting, and security. The fully managed Grafana Cloud offering helps organizations get observability up and running easier and faster, with turnkey solutions for Kubernetes and infrastructure monitoring, incident response management, load testing, application observability, and more. Grafana Labs is backed by leading investors Lightspeed Venture Partners, Lead Edge Capital, GIC, Sequoia Capital, Coatue, J.P. Morgan, and CapitalG. Follow Grafana Labs on LinkedIn and Twitter or visit grafana.com.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 1,742
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Google

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, 94043, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 700 and 749

A problem isn't truly solved until it's solved for all. Googlers build products that help create opportunities for everyone, whether down the street or across the globe. Bring your insight, imagination and a healthy disregard for the impossible. Bring everything that makes you unique. Together, we can build for everyone. Check out our career opportunities at goo.gle/3DLEokh

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 324,578
Subsidiaries: 52
12-month incidents
15
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
5

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/grafana-labs.jpeg
Grafana Labs
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/google.jpeg
Google
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
Grafana Labs
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Google
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Grafana Labs has 365.12% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Google has 3388.37% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Grafana Labs (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Grafana Labs cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Google cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/grafana-labs.jpeg
Grafana Labs
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network, SCIM Provisioning Misconfiguration
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Client-side open redirect
Motivation: Account takeover, execution of malicious plugins
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/google.jpeg
Google
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Email Spoofing, Messaging Platform (WhatsApp)
Motivation: Financial Gain (Fraudulent Services/Products) or Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Use-After-Free (UAF) vulnerability in the Linux HFSC queuing discipline
Motivation: Security Research and Bounty
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Prompt-injection technique through crafted HTML and CSS code
Motivation: Credential theft, social engineering
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Grafana Labs company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Google company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Google company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Grafana Labs company.

In the current year, Google company has reported more cyber incidents than Grafana Labs company.

Google company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Grafana Labs company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Google company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Grafana Labs company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Google company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Grafana Labs company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Grafana Labs company and Google company have disclosed vulnerabilities.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Google holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Google company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Grafana Labs company.

Google company employs more people globally than Grafana Labs company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Google holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Google holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Google holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Google holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Google holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Google holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/amdgpu: hide VRAM sysfs attributes on GPUs without VRAM Otherwise accessing them can cause a crash.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/amdgpu: Fix NULL pointer dereference in VRAM logic for APU devices Previously, APU platforms (and other scenarios with uninitialized VRAM managers) triggered a NULL pointer dereference in `ttm_resource_manager_usage()`. The root cause is not that the `struct ttm_resource_manager *man` pointer itself is NULL, but that `man->bdev` (the backing device pointer within the manager) remains uninitialized (NULL) on APUs—since APUs lack dedicated VRAM and do not fully set up VRAM manager structures. When `ttm_resource_manager_usage()` attempts to acquire `man->bdev->lru_lock`, it dereferences the NULL `man->bdev`, leading to a kernel OOPS. 1. **amdgpu_cs.c**: Extend the existing bandwidth control check in `amdgpu_cs_get_threshold_for_moves()` to include a check for `ttm_resource_manager_used()`. If the manager is not used (uninitialized `bdev`), return 0 for migration thresholds immediately—skipping VRAM-specific logic that would trigger the NULL dereference. 2. **amdgpu_kms.c**: Update the `AMDGPU_INFO_VRAM_USAGE` ioctl and memory info reporting to use a conditional: if the manager is used, return the real VRAM usage; otherwise, return 0. This avoids accessing `man->bdev` when it is NULL. 3. **amdgpu_virt.c**: Modify the vf2pf (virtual function to physical function) data write path. Use `ttm_resource_manager_used()` to check validity: if the manager is usable, calculate `fb_usage` from VRAM usage; otherwise, set `fb_usage` to 0 (APUs have no discrete framebuffer to report). This approach is more robust than APU-specific checks because it: - Works for all scenarios where the VRAM manager is uninitialized (not just APUs), - Aligns with TTM's design by using its native helper function, - Preserves correct behavior for discrete GPUs (which have fully initialized `man->bdev` and pass the `ttm_resource_manager_used()` check). v4: use ttm_resource_manager_used(&adev->mman.vram_mgr.manager) instead of checking the adev->gmc.is_app_apu flag (Christian)

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: exfat: fix improper check of dentry.stream.valid_size We found an infinite loop bug in the exFAT file system that can lead to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) condition. When a dentry in an exFAT filesystem is malformed, the following system calls — SYS_openat, SYS_ftruncate, and SYS_pwrite64 — can cause the kernel to hang. Root cause analysis shows that the size validation code in exfat_find() does not check whether dentry.stream.valid_size is negative. As a result, the system calls mentioned above can succeed and eventually trigger the DoS issue. This patch adds a check for negative dentry.stream.valid_size to prevent this vulnerability.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: smb/server: fix possible memory leak in smb2_read() Memory leak occurs when ksmbd_vfs_read() fails. Fix this by adding the missing kvfree().

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: smb/server: fix possible refcount leak in smb2_sess_setup() Reference count of ksmbd_session will leak when session need reconnect. Fix this by adding the missing ksmbd_user_session_put().