Comparison Overview

ICE

VS

Raymond James

ICE

Atlanta, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849

ICE (NYSE: ICE) connects people to data, technology and expertise that create opportunity and inspire innovation. For terms of use, visit www.ice.com/privacy-security-center/terms-of-use

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 11,554
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Raymond James

880 Carillon Parkway, None, St. Petersburg, Florida, US, 33716
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 1962 and a public company since 1983, Raymond James Financial, Inc. is a Florida-based diversified holding company providing financial services to individuals, corporations and municipalities through its subsidiary companies engaged primarily in investment and financial planning, in addition to capital markets and asset management. The firm's stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (RJF). Through its three broker/dealer subsidiaries, Raymond James Financial has approximately 8,700 financial advisors throughout the United States, Canada and overseas. Total client assets are $1.26 trillion (as of 10/25/2023). Raymond James has been recognized nationally for its community support and corporate philanthropy. The company has been ranked as one of the best in the country in customer service, as a great place to work and as a national leader in support of the arts.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 18,671
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/icemarkets.jpeg
ICE
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/raymond-james-financial-inc-.jpeg
Raymond James
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
ICE
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Raymond James
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ICE in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Raymond James in 2025.

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

ICE cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Raymond James (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Raymond James cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/icemarkets.jpeg
ICE
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/raymond-james-financial-inc-.jpeg
Raymond James
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Misconfiguration
Blog: Blog

FAQ

ICE company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Raymond James company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Raymond James company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas ICE company has not reported any.

In the current year, Raymond James company and ICE company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Raymond James company nor ICE company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Raymond James company has disclosed at least one data breach, while ICE company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Raymond James company nor ICE company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither ICE company nor Raymond James company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither ICE nor Raymond James holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

ICE company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Raymond James company.

Raymond James company employs more people globally than ICE company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither ICE nor Raymond James holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither ICE nor Raymond James holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither ICE nor Raymond James holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither ICE nor Raymond James holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither ICE nor Raymond James holds HIPAA certification.

Neither ICE nor Raymond James holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N