Comparison Overview

IGT

VS

Sage

IGT

6355 S Buffalo Dr, Las Vegas, NV, US, 89113
Last Update: 2025-11-21
View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.IGT.com

IGT is a leading global provider of gaming, digital and financial technology solutions, formed through the combination of International Game Technology PLC’s Gaming & Digital Business and Everi Holdings Inc. IGT’s offering spans gaming machines, game content and systems, iGaming, sports betting, cash access, loyalty and player engagement solutions, enabling it to deliver integrated, customer-centric experiences across land-based and digital environments. Organized into Gaming, Digital and FinTech business units, IGT drives innovation, efficiency and value for casino, digital and hospitality operators worldwide. The company is headquartered in Las Vegas.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 9,833
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
View Profile

Sage

North Park, Newcastle upon Tyne, undefined, NE13 9AA, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sage.com

At Sage, we knock down barriers with information, insights, and tools to help your business flow. We provide businesses with software and services that are simple and easy to use, as we work with you to give you that feeling of confidence. Customers trust our Payroll, HR, and Finance software to make business flow with ease. From our local network of experts to our ever-growing partnerships, we are on hand to give you all the insights you need to thrive. 💚

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 14,135
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/igt.jpeg
IGT
—
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/sage-software.jpeg
Sage
—
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
IGT
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Sage
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

IGT has 127.27% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sage in 2025.

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

IGT cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Sage cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/igt.jpeg
IGT
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: financial gain, data extortion
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2022
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: financial gain, data extortion
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sage-software.jpeg
Sage
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unsecured Databases
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

IGT and Sage have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, IGT company has reported more cyber incidents than Sage company.

IGT company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Sage company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Sage company has disclosed at least one data breach, while IGT company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Sage company nor IGT company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither IGT company nor Sage company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither IGT nor Sage holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

IGT company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Sage company.

Sage company employs more people globally than IGT company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither IGT nor Sage holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither IGT nor Sage holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither IGT nor Sage holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither IGT nor Sage holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither IGT nor Sage holds HIPAA certification.

Neither IGT nor Sage holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

ThingsBoard in versions prior to v4.2.1 allows an authenticated user to upload malicious SVG images via the "Image Gallery", leading to a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The exploit can be triggered when any user accesses the public API endpoint of the malicious SVG images, or if the malicious images are embedded in an `iframe` element, during a widget creation, deployed to any page of the platform (e.g., dashboards), and accessed during normal operations. The vulnerability resides in the `ImageController`, which fails to restrict the execution of JavaScript code when an image is loaded by the user's browser. This vulnerability can lead to the execution of malicious code in the context of other users' sessions, potentially compromising their accounts and allowing unauthorized actions.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/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
References
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to to verify that the token used during the code exchange originates from the same authentication flow, which allows an authenticated user to perform account takeover via a specially crafted email address used when switching authentication methods and sending a request to the /users/login/sso/code-exchange endpoint. The vulnerability requires ExperimentalEnableAuthenticationTransfer to be enabled (default: enabled) and RequireEmailVerification to be disabled (default: disabled).

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to sanitize team email addresses to be visible only to Team Admins, which allows any authenticated user to view team email addresses via the GET /api/v4/channels/{channel_id}/common_teams endpoint

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
References
Description

Exposure of email service credentials to users without administrative rights in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Devolutions Server: before 2025.2.21, before 2025.3.9.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
References
Description

Exposure of credentials in unintended requests in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Server: through 2025.2.20, through 2025.3.8.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
References