Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Grant Thornton (US)Grant Thornton (US)
VS
MercerMercer
Grant Thornton (US)

Grant Thornton (US)

171 N. Clark Street, Suite 200, Chicago, IL, US, 60601

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://gt-us.co/3LukwpC
767/1000Fair

In the US, Grant Thornton LLP and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC (and their respective subsidiary entities) practice as an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations and professional standards. G...

NAICS:54
NAICS Definition:Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Employees:11,632
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Mercer

Mercer

New York, New York, New York, 10036, US

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile

At Mercer, A Marsh business, we’re helping our clients realize their investment objectives, shape the future of work, and enhance health and retirement outcomes for their people. As a business of Marsh, for 80 years, we’ve been helping our clients, colleagues and comm...

NAICS:54
NAICS Definition:Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Employees:22,066
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Grant Thornton (US)

Grant Thornton (US)

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Mercer

Mercer

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Professional Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Grant Thornton (US) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Professional Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mercer in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Grant Thornton (US) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Grant Thornton (US) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Mercer (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mercer cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Grant Thornton (US)

Grant Thornton (US)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GRA519072625
Mercer

Mercer

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
FIDLPLAMEMER1779194480

FAQ

Between Grant Thornton (US) company and Mercer company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) company and Mercer company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) company and Mercer company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) company and Mercer company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) company and Mercer company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) company and Mercer company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) company and Mercer company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) company and Mercer company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) company and Mercer company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) company and Mercer company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) company and Mercer company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) and Mercer, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) and Mercer, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Grant Thornton (US) or Mercer ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Grant Thornton (US) or Mercer ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) and Mercer, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Grant Thornton (US) and Mercer, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8