Comparison Overview

Jabil

VS

Sanmina

Jabil

10800 Roosevelt Blvd N, St Petersburg, Florida, 33716, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

At Jabil (NYSE: JBL), we are proud to be a trusted partner for the world's top brands, offering comprehensive engineering, manufacturing, and supply chain solutions. With over 50 years of experience across industries and a vast network of over 100 sites worldwide, Jabil combines global reach with local expertise to deliver both scalable and customized solutions. Our commitment extends beyond business success as we strive to build sustainable processes that minimize environmental impact and foster vibrant and diverse communities around the globe.

NAICS: 335
NAICS Definition: Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees: 53,594
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Sanmina

2700 N 1st St, San Jose, 95134, US
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 750 and 799

Sanmina Corporation (Nasdaq: SANM) is a leading integrated manufacturing solutions provider serving the fastest-growing segments of the global Electronics Manufacturing Services (EMS) market. Recognized as a technology leader, Sanmina Corporationprovides end-to-end manufacturing solutions, delivering superior quality and support to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) primarily in the communications networks, defense and aerospace, industrial and semiconductor systems, medical, multimedia, computing and storage, automotive and clean technology sectors. Sanmina Corporation has facilities strategically located in key regions throughout the world.

NAICS: 335
NAICS Definition: Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees: 22,340
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/jabil.jpeg
Jabil
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/sanmina.jpeg
Sanmina
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
Jabil
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Sanmina
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jabil in 2025.

Incidents vs Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sanmina in 2025.

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

Jabil cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Sanmina cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jabil.jpeg
Jabil
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sanmina.jpeg
Sanmina
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, Sanmina company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Jabil company.

In the current year, Sanmina company and Jabil company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Sanmina company nor Jabil company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Sanmina company nor Jabil company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Sanmina company nor Jabil company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Jabil company nor Sanmina company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Jabil nor Sanmina holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Jabil company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Sanmina company.

Jabil company employs more people globally than Sanmina company, reflecting its scale as a Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing.

Neither Jabil nor Sanmina holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Jabil nor Sanmina holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Jabil nor Sanmina holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Jabil nor Sanmina holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Jabil nor Sanmina holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Jabil nor Sanmina holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H