Comparison Overview

IGT

VS

SAP

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

SAP

Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16, None, Walldorf, BW, DE, 69190
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sap.com

SAP is the leading enterprise application and business AI company. We stand at the intersection of business and technology, where our innovations are designed to directly address real business challenges and produce real-world impacts. Our solutions are the backbone for the world’s most complex and demanding processes. SAP’s integrated portfolio unites the elements of modern organizations — from workforce and financials to customers and supply chains — into a unified ecosystem that drives progress. SAP privacy statement for followers: www.sap.com/sps Our Community Guidelines At SAP, we're committed to fostering meaningful conversations that respect everyone in our community. To maintain a positive environment, we moderate comments that: • Target individuals personally, including our employees, customers, or partners • Contain discriminatory, harassing, or threatening language/content • Share personal information without consent • Promote misinformation or spam or 3rd-party links We believe in open dialogue and constructive feedback, but we will remove content that violates these guidelines without notice. We appreciate your understanding and contribution to a respectful community. For questions about our moderation practices, please DM or contact us at [email protected].

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 133,175
Subsidiaries: 17
12-month incidents
6
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

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/sap.jpeg
SAP
—
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
SAP
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)

SAP has 1263.64% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

IGT cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

SAP 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/sap.jpeg
SAP
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network, RFC-Exposed Function Module, ABAP Code Injection
Motivation: Data Theft, Data Manipulation, Privilege Escalation, Credential Theft, Operational Disruption, Potential Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Vulnerability Exploitation
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network (RMI-P4 module), Path Traversal (SAP Print Service), File Upload (SAP Supplier Relationship Management)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

SAP company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to IGT company.

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

Both SAP company and IGT company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

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

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

SAP company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while IGT company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither IGT nor SAP holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

SAP company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to IGT company.

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

Neither IGT nor SAP holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither IGT nor SAP holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither IGT nor SAP holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither IGT nor SAP holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither IGT nor SAP holds HIPAA certification.

Neither IGT nor SAP 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