Comparison Overview

Pandora

VS

Prada Group

Pandora

Havneholmen 17-19, None, Copenhagen, None, DK, 1561
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.pandoragroup.com

Pandora is the world’s largest jewellery brand. The company designs, manufactures and markets hand-finished jewellery made from high-quality materials at affordable prices Pandora jewellery is sold in more than 100 countries through more than 6,500 points of sale, including more than 2,500 concept stores. Headquartered in Copenhagen, Denmark, Pandora employs 32,000 people worldwide and crafts its jewellery at two LEED-certified facilities in Thailand using mainly recycled silver and gold. Pandora is committed to leadership in sustainability and has set science-based targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% across its own operations and value chain by 2030. The company is listed on the Nasdaq Copenhagen stock exchange and generated revenue of DKK 26.5 billion (EUR 3.6 billion) in 2022. See all our products and collections on pandora.net Visit our guidelines for this channel, and what types of post we accept here: https://pandoragroup.com/media/Corporate-social-media-principles

NAICS: 4483
NAICS Definition: Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees: 19,614
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
View Profile

Prada Group

Via Antonio Fogazzaro, 28, None, Milan , Milan , IT, 20135
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849
http://www.pradagroup.com

The Prada Group is a global leader in the luxury industry and a pioneer in its unconventional dialogue with contemporary society across diverse cultural spheres. Home to prestigious brands as Prada, Miu Miu, Church’s, Car Shoe, Marchesi 1824 and Luna Rossa, the Group remains committed to enhancing their value by increasing their visibility and desirability over time. Promoting creativity and sustainable growth, the Group offers its brands a shared vision that gives each of them the opportunity to stand out and express their essence. With 26 owned factories and over 14,800 employees, the Group designs and produces ready-to-wear, leather goods, footwear and jewellery collections, and distributes its products in more than 70 countries, through 606 Directly Operated Stores (DOS), e-commerce channels and selected e-tailers and department stores. Prada Group also operates in the eyewear and beauty sectors through licensing agreements with industry leaders. Prada S.p.A. is listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange as 1913.

NAICS: 4483
NAICS Definition: Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees: 11,309
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pandora-a-s.jpeg
Pandora
—
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/pradagroup.jpeg
Prada 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
Pandora
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Prada Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

Pandora has 25.0% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

No incidents recorded for Prada Group in 2025.

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

Pandora cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Prada Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pandora-a-s.jpeg
Pandora
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Supply Chain Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pradagroup.jpeg
Prada Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Pandora company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Prada Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, Pandora company has reported more cyber incidents than Prada Group company.

Neither Prada Group company nor Pandora company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

Neither Prada Group company nor Pandora company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Pandora company nor Prada Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Pandora nor Prada Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Prada Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Pandora company.

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

Neither Pandora nor Prada Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Pandora nor Prada Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Pandora nor Prada Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Pandora nor Prada Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Pandora nor Prada Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Pandora nor Prada Group 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