Comparison Overview

Great Clips Inc.

VS

Rover.com

Great Clips Inc.

4400 W. 78th St., Minneapolis, 55435, US
Last Update: 2026-01-19
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://jobs.greatclips.com/

Established in Minneapolis in 1982, Great Clips has grown to be the world's largest and fastest growing salon brand. There are more than 4,400 salons throughout the United States and Canada -- all of them owned by franchisees. Visit us at www.greatclips.com Employment Information for Corporate Employees: - Competitive medical, dental, flexible spending and disability benefits - Flexible work options like compressed work weeks, and telecommuting - Award-winning wellness programs and tuition assistance - View corporate opportunities at: https://jobs.greatclips.com/corporate Stylists/Salon Managers can find employment information at: https://jobs.greatclips.com For more information on Great Clips franchises, visit www.GreatClipsFranchise.com

NAICS: 81
NAICS Definition: Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees: 12,370
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Rover.com

720 Olive Way, Seattle, Washington, US, 98101
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799
http://www.rover.com

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: 11,132
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/greatclips.jpeg
Great Clips Inc.
—
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
Great Clips Inc.
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 Great Clips Inc. in 2026.

Incidents vs Consumer Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rover.com in 2026.

Incident History — Great Clips Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Great Clips Inc. 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/greatclips.jpeg
Great Clips Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/roverdotcom.jpeg
Rover.com
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, Rover.com company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Great Clips Inc. company.

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

Neither Rover.com company nor Great Clips Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Rover.com company nor Great Clips Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Rover.com company nor Great Clips Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Great Clips Inc. company nor Rover.com company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Great Clips Inc. nor Rover.com holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Great Clips Inc. company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Rover.com company.

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

Neither Great Clips Inc. nor Rover.com holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Great Clips Inc. nor Rover.com holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Great Clips Inc. nor Rover.com holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Great Clips Inc. nor Rover.com holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Great Clips Inc. nor Rover.com holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Great Clips Inc. nor Rover.com holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Typemill is a flat-file, Markdown-based CMS designed for informational documentation websites. A reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exists in the login error view template `login.twig` of versions 2.19.1 and below. The `username` value can be echoed back without proper contextual encoding when authentication fails. An attacker can execute script in the login page context. This issue has been fixed in version 2.19.2.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

A DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the DomainCheckerApp class within domain/script.js of Sourcecodester Domain Availability Checker v1.0. The vulnerability occurs because the application improperly handles user-supplied data in the createResultElement method by using the unsafe innerHTML property to render domain search results.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References
Description

A Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in Sourcecodester Modern Image Gallery App v1.0 within the gallery/upload.php component. The application fails to properly validate uploaded file contents. Additionally, the application preserves the user-supplied file extension during the save process. This allows an unauthenticated attacker to upload arbitrary PHP code by spoofing the MIME type as an image, leading to full system compromise.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References
Description

A UNIX symbolic link following issue in the jailer component in Firecracker version v1.13.1 and earlier and 1.14.0 on Linux may allow a local host user with write access to the pre-created jailer directories to overwrite arbitrary host files via a symlink attack during the initialization copy at jailer startup, if the jailer is executed with root privileges. To mitigate this issue, users should upgrade to version v1.13.2 or 1.14.1 or above.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/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
References
Description

An information disclosure vulnerability exists in the /srvs/membersrv/getCashiers endpoint of the Aptsys gemscms backend platform thru 2025-05-28. This unauthenticated endpoint returns a list of cashier accounts, including names, email addresses, usernames, and passwords hashed using MD5. As MD5 is a broken cryptographic function, the hashes can be easily reversed using public tools, exposing user credentials in plaintext. This allows remote attackers to perform unauthorized logins and potentially gain access to sensitive POS operations or backend functions.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References