Comparison Overview

Marsh

VS

Unum

Marsh

1166 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, 10036, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

We help our clients and colleagues grow — and our communities thrive — by protecting and promoting Possibility. We seek better ways to manage risk and define more effective paths to the right outcome. We go beyond risk to rewards for our clients, our company, our colleagues, and the communities in which we serve. Marsh, a business of Marsh McLennan (NYSE: MMC), is the world’s top insurance broker and risk advisor. Marsh McLennan is a global leader in risk, strategy and people, advising clients in 130 countries across four businesses: Marsh, Guy Carpenter, Mercer and Oliver Wyman. With annual revenue of $23 billion and more than 85,000 colleagues, Marsh McLennan helps build the confidence to thrive through the power of perspective.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 27,488
Subsidiaries: 29
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Unum

1 Fountain Sq., None, Chattanooga, TN, US, 37402
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 750 and 799

Since our founding in 1848, Unum has been a leader in the employee benefits business through innovation, integrity and an unwavering commitment to our customers. This simple philosophy has guided us through America’s fledgling insurance landscape and helped us become an international leader in financial protection benefits, offering disability, life, accident, critical illness, dental, vision and stop-loss insurance; leave and absence management support and behavioral health services.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 11,338
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/marsh.jpeg
Marsh
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/unum.jpeg
Unum
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
Marsh
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Unum
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Marsh in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Unum in 2025.

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

Marsh cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Unum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/marsh.jpeg
Marsh
Incidents

Date Detected: 04/2021
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2013
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/unum.jpeg
Unum
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Exploitation of Vulnerability
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Marsh and Unum have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Unum company and Marsh company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Unum company nor Marsh company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Unum company and Marsh company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Unum company nor Marsh company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Unum company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Marsh company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Marsh nor Unum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Marsh company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Unum company.

Marsh company employs more people globally than Unum company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Marsh nor Unum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Marsh nor Unum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Marsh nor Unum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Marsh nor Unum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Marsh nor Unum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Marsh nor Unum 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