Comparison Overview

Pfizer

VS

Merck

Pfizer

New York, New York, 10017, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20

We’re celebrating over 175 years of daring scientific innovation—and we’re not done yet. Let’s outdo yesterday. Protect your health at PfizerForAll.com For additional information on our guidelines, please visit http://www.pfizer.com/community-guidelines

NAICS: 3254
NAICS Definition: Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees: 102,145
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Merck

126 E Lincoln Ave, P.O. Box 2000, Rahway, New Jersey, US, 07065
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 800 and 849

At Merck, known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, we are unified around our purpose: We use the power of leading-edge science to save and improve lives around the world. For more than 130 years, we have brought hope to humanity through the development of important medicines and vaccines. We aspire to be the premier research-intensive biopharmaceutical company in the world – and today, we are at the forefront of research to deliver innovative health solutions that advance the prevention and treatment of diseases in people and animals. We foster a diverse and inclusive global workforce and operate responsibly every day to enable a safe, sustainable and healthy future for all people and communities. For more information, visit www.merck.com. This site is intended for residents of the United States and Canada and their territories only. FLS: http://merck.us/3TKXNuZ

NAICS: 3254
NAICS Definition: Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees: 42,297
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pfizer.jpeg
Pfizer
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/merck.jpeg
Merck
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
Pfizer
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Merck
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pfizer in 2025.

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

Merck has 16.28% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Pfizer cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Merck cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pfizer.jpeg
Pfizer
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/merck.jpeg
Merck
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2017
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, Merck company has reported more cyber incidents than Pfizer company.

Neither Merck company nor Pfizer company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Merck company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Pfizer company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Merck company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Pfizer company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Pfizer company nor Merck company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Pfizer nor Merck holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Pfizer company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Merck company.

Pfizer company employs more people globally than Merck company, reflecting its scale as a Pharmaceutical Manufacturing.

Neither Pfizer nor Merck holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Pfizer nor Merck holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Pfizer nor Merck holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Pfizer nor Merck holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Pfizer nor Merck holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Pfizer nor Merck 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