Comparison Overview

JD.COM

VS

Google

JD.COM

JD Building, No. 18 Kechuang 11 Street, BDA, Beijing, CN, 101111
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849

JD.com, also known as JINGDONG, is a leading e-commerce company transferring to be a technology and service enterprise with supply chain at its core. JD.com’s business has expanded across retail, technology, logistics, health, property development, industrials, and international business. Ranking 44 on the Fortune Global 500, JD.com is China’s largest retailer by revenue. JD.com serves over 600 million customers and has set the standard for e-commerce through its commitment to quality, authenticity, and competitive pricing. The company operates the largest fulfillment infrastructure of any e-commerce company in China, enabling 90% of retail orders to be delivered within the same or next day. JD.com also promotes productivity and innovation across a range of industries by offering its cutting-edge technology and infrastructure to partners, brands, and diverse sectors.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 37,547
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Google

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, 94043, US
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 750 and 799

A problem isn't truly solved until it's solved for all. Googlers build products that help create opportunities for everyone, whether down the street or across the globe. Bring your insight, imagination and a healthy disregard for the impossible. Bring everything that makes you unique. Together, we can build for everyone. Check out our career opportunities at goo.gle/3DLEokh

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 324,578
Subsidiaries: 52
12-month incidents
8
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
5

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jd.com.jpeg
JD.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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/google.jpeg
Google
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
JD.COM
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Google
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JD.COM in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Google has 1279.31% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — JD.COM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JD.COM cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Google cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jd.com.jpeg
JD.COM
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/google.jpeg
Google
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Email processing systems, Calendar invitation structures, Document files
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Email Spoofing, Messaging Platform (WhatsApp)
Motivation: Financial Gain (Fraudulent Services/Products) or Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Prompt-injection technique through crafted HTML and CSS code
Motivation: Credential theft, social engineering
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Google company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas JD.COM company has not reported any.

In the current year, Google company has reported more cyber incidents than JD.COM company.

Google company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while JD.COM company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Google company has disclosed at least one data breach, while JD.COM company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Google company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while JD.COM company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Google company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while JD.COM company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither JD.COM nor Google holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Google company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to JD.COM company.

Google company employs more people globally than JD.COM company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither JD.COM nor Google holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither JD.COM nor Google holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither JD.COM nor Google holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither JD.COM nor Google holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither JD.COM nor Google holds HIPAA certification.

Neither JD.COM nor Google 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