Comparison Overview

Moncler

VS

Swatch Group

Moncler

Via Stendhal 47, Milan, undefined, 20144, IT
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

Moncler was founded in Grenoble, France, in 1952 and is currently headquartered in Milan, Italy. Over the years the brand has combined style with constant technological research assisted by experts in activities linked to the world of the mountain. This makes the Moncler collections the quintessence of outwear that marries the extreme demands of nature with those of city life. In 2003 Remo Ruffini took over the company, of which he is currently President and Creative Director. Moncler manufactures and directly distributes men's, women's and accessory collections through its boutiques and in exclusive international department stores and multi-brand outlets.

NAICS: 4483
NAICS Definition: Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees: 3,548
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Swatch Group

Seevorstadt 6, Biel, 2502, CH
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Swatch Group is the world's number one manufacturer of finished watches. With its 16 watch brands, the Group is present in all price segments, and is also active in the manufacture and sale of jewelry, watch movements and components. Swatch Group unites, among other companies, the following watch brands under its roof: Breguet, Harry Winston, Blancpain, Glashütte Original, Jaquet Droz, Omega, Longines, Rado, Union Glashütte, Tissot, Balmain, Certina, Mido, Hamilton, Swatch and Flik Flak. The Group has a strong distribution and multi-brand retail net with two sophisticated boutiques under the name of Tourbillon and Hour Passion. Swatch Group is also an important player in advanced nanomechanical, nanoelectronic and Bluetooth technologies essential to watchmaking and other industries. The Group employs 32,500 persons in over 50 countries. In 2024 Net Sales amounted to CHF 6.74 billion.

NAICS: 4483
NAICS Definition: Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees: 19,797
Subsidiaries: 36
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/moncler.jpeg
Moncler
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/swatchgroup.jpeg
Swatch Group
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
Moncler
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Swatch Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Luxury Goods and Jewelry Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Moncler in 2025.

Incidents vs Retail Luxury Goods and Jewelry Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Swatch Group in 2025.

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

Moncler cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Swatch Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Swatch Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/moncler.jpeg
Moncler
Incidents

Date Detected: 01/2022
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/swatchgroup.jpeg
Swatch Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2020
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Moncler and Swatch Group have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Swatch Group company and Moncler company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Swatch Group company nor Moncler company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Moncler company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Swatch Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Swatch Group company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Moncler company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Moncler company nor Swatch Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Moncler nor Swatch Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Swatch Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Moncler company.

Swatch Group company employs more people globally than Moncler company, reflecting its scale as a Retail Luxury Goods and Jewelry.

Neither Moncler nor Swatch Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Moncler nor Swatch Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Moncler nor Swatch Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Moncler nor Swatch Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Moncler nor Swatch Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Moncler nor Swatch Group 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