Comparison Overview

Mercer

VS

PwC

Mercer

New York, New York, New York, NY, 10036, US
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

At Mercer, we believe in building brighter futures. Together, our 25,000 employees in over 130 counties are helping redefine the future of work, reshape retirement and investment outcomes, and unlock real health and well-being. For over 75 years, we’ve provided trusted advice and solutions to build healthier and more sustainable futures for our clients, colleagues and communities. Balancing economics and empathy in our approach, we work side by side with you to find solutions to benefit your people and your business. By turning ideas into actions that spark positive change, we help you enrich employees’ lives and careers and drive innovation, progress and performance. Mercer is a business of Marsh McLennan. Get to know us better: Click the “learn more” button at the top of the page to discover everything we do to help you meet the needs of today and tomorrow. Follow us on Twitter at @Mercer.

NAICS: 54
NAICS Definition: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Employees: 23,248
Subsidiaries: 29
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

PwC

1 Embankment Place, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 800 and 849

At PwC, we help clients drive their companies to the leading edge. We’re a tech-forward, people-empowered network with more than 370,000 people in 149 countries. Across audit and assurance, tax and legal, deals and consulting we help build, accelerate and sustain momentum. Find out more at www.pwc.com. PwC: Audit and assurance, consulting and tax services PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Content on this page has been prepared for general information only and is not intended to be relied upon as accounting, tax or professional advice. Please reach out to your advisors for specific advice.

NAICS: 54
NAICS Definition: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Employees: 272,754
Subsidiaries: 79
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mercer.jpeg
Mercer
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/pwc.jpeg
PwC
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
Mercer
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
PwC
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Professional Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mercer in 2025.

Incidents vs Professional Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PwC in 2025.

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

Mercer cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

PwC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mercer.jpeg
Mercer
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

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/pwc.jpeg
PwC
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Mercer company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas PwC company has not reported any.

In the current year, PwC company and Mercer company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither PwC company nor Mercer company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Mercer company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other PwC company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither PwC company nor Mercer company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Mercer company nor PwC company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Mercer nor PwC holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

PwC company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Mercer company.

PwC company employs more people globally than Mercer company, reflecting its scale as a Professional Services.

Neither Mercer nor PwC holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Mercer nor PwC holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Mercer nor PwC holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Mercer nor PwC holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Mercer nor PwC holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Mercer nor PwC 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