Comparison Overview

JDE Peet's

VS

Molson Coors Beverage Company

JDE Peet's

Oosterdoksstraat 80, Amsterdam, North Holland, NL, 1011 DK
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

JDE Peet’s is the world’s leading pure-play coffee company, serving approximately 4,400 cups of coffee per second in more than 100 markets. Guided by our ‘Reignite the Amazing’ strategy, we are focusing on brand-led growth across three big bets: Peet’s, L’OR, and Jacobs, alongside a collection of 9 local icons. In 2024, JDE Peet’s generated total sales of EUR 8.8 billion and employed a global workforce of more than 21,000 employees. Discover more about our journey to deliver a coffee for every cup and a brand for every heart at www.jdepeets.com.

NAICS: 722
NAICS Definition: Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees: 10,426
Subsidiaries: 19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Molson Coors Beverage Company

250 S Wacker Dr, Chicago, Illinois, US, 60606
Last Update: 2026-01-19
Between 750 and 799

From Coors Light, Miller Lite, Molson Canadian, Carling and Staropramen to Coors Banquet, Blue Moon Belgian White, Leinenkugel’s Summer Shandy, Vizzy, Creemore Springs and more, our 16,000+ employees across the globe make and market many of the most beloved beverage brands in the world. While our history is rooted in beer, we offer a modern portfolio that expands beyond the beer aisle with energy drinks, non-alc beer and canned cocktails, ready-to-drink coffee and more. Molson Coors Beverage Company is a publicly traded company that operates through Molson Coors North America and Molson Coors Europe, and is traded on the New York and Canadian Stock Exchange (TAP). Our commitment to raising industry standards, promoting the responsible consumption of our products, and leaving a positive imprint on our employees, consumers and communities is reflected on our website, www.molsoncoors.com. Celebrate responsibly. Follow only if legal drinking age and do not share with those who are underage. TERMS: http://bit.ly/TnCs-MC

NAICS: 722
NAICS Definition: Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees: 12,071
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jdepeets.jpeg
JDE Peet's
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/molson-coors.jpeg
Molson Coors Beverage Company
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
JDE Peet's
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Molson Coors Beverage Company
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Food and Beverage Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JDE Peet's in 2026.

Incidents vs Food and Beverage Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Molson Coors Beverage Company in 2026.

Incident History — JDE Peet's (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JDE Peet's cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Molson Coors Beverage Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Molson Coors Beverage Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jdepeets.jpeg
JDE Peet's
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/molson-coors.jpeg
Molson Coors Beverage Company
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2021
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

JDE Peet's company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Molson Coors Beverage Company company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Molson Coors Beverage Company company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas JDE Peet's company has not reported any.

In the current year, Molson Coors Beverage Company company and JDE Peet's company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Molson Coors Beverage Company company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while JDE Peet's company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Molson Coors Beverage Company company nor JDE Peet's company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Molson Coors Beverage Company company nor JDE Peet's company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither JDE Peet's company nor Molson Coors Beverage Company company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither JDE Peet's nor Molson Coors Beverage Company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

JDE Peet's company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Molson Coors Beverage Company company.

Molson Coors Beverage Company company employs more people globally than JDE Peet's company, reflecting its scale as a Food and Beverage Services.

Neither JDE Peet's nor Molson Coors Beverage Company holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither JDE Peet's nor Molson Coors Beverage Company holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither JDE Peet's nor Molson Coors Beverage Company holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither JDE Peet's nor Molson Coors Beverage Company holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither JDE Peet's nor Molson Coors Beverage Company holds HIPAA certification.

Neither JDE Peet's nor Molson Coors Beverage Company holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N