Comparison Overview

LPL Financial

VS

Deutsche Bank

LPL Financial

4707 Executive Drive, San Diego, CA, US, 92121-1968
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.lpl.com/

LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) is among the fastest growing wealth management firms in the U.S. As a leader in the financial advisor-mediated marketplace, LPL supports over 29,000 financial advisors and the wealth management practices of approximately 1,100 financial institutions, servicing and custodying approximately $1.9 trillion in brokerage and advisory assets on behalf of approximately 7 million Americans. The firm provides a wide range of advisor affiliation models, investment solutions, fintech tools and practice management services, ensuring that advisors and institutions have the flexibility to choose the business model, services, and technology resources they need to run thriving businesses.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 14,111
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1
View Profile

Deutsche Bank

Taunusanlage 12, Frankfurt am Main, Hessen, 60325, DE
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
https://www.db.com

Deutsche Bank is the leading German bank with strong European roots and a global network. The bank focuses on its strengths in a Corporate Bank newly created in 2019, a leading Private Bank, a focused investment bank and in asset management. We provide financial services to companies, governments, institutional investors, small and medium-sized businesses and private individuals. Deutsche Bank was founded in 1870 to accompany German businesses into the world, and has worked across borders ever since. Useful links: Jobs https://www.db.com/careers. Netiquette at https://www.db.com/netiquette. Data protection policy https://www.db.com/DataProtection. Imprint https://www.db.com/imprint.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 74,237
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lpl-financial.jpeg
LPL Financial
—
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/deutsche-bank.jpeg
Deutsche Bank
—
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
LPL Financial
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Deutsche Bank
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LPL Financial in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Deutsche Bank in 2025.

Incident History — LPL Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LPL Financial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Deutsche Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Deutsche Bank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lpl-financial.jpeg
LPL Financial
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Email Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2012
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Theft of Employee's Desktop Computer
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/deutsche-bank.jpeg
Deutsche Bank
Incidents

Date Detected: 07/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Exploitation of Software Vulnerability
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Physical Access, Logical Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Initial Access Broker
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

LPL Financial company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Deutsche Bank company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

LPL Financial company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Deutsche Bank company.

In the current year, Deutsche Bank company and LPL Financial company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Deutsche Bank company nor LPL Financial company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Deutsche Bank company and LPL Financial company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Deutsche Bank company nor LPL Financial company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither LPL Financial company nor Deutsche Bank company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither LPL Financial nor Deutsche Bank holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Deutsche Bank company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to LPL Financial company.

Deutsche Bank company employs more people globally than LPL Financial company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither LPL Financial nor Deutsche Bank holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor Deutsche Bank holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor Deutsche Bank holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor Deutsche Bank holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor Deutsche Bank holds HIPAA certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor Deutsche Bank 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.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References
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."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References
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).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References