Comparison Overview

Salesloft

VS

Rakuten

Salesloft

1180 West Peachtree St NW, Suite 2400, Atlanta, GA, US, 30309
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 0 and 549

Salesloft powers durable revenue growth for the world’s most demanding companies. Salesloft’s industry-leading Revenue Orchestration Platform uses purpose-built AI to help market-facing teams prioritize and take action on what matters most, from first touch to upsell and renewal. More than 5,000 customers including Google, 3M, IBM, Shopify, Square, and Cisco gain a performance force multiplier with Salesloft by shifting to a durable revenue engagement model, helping them solve the complexities of modern B2B sales and unlock revenue efficiency.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 1,182
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
6
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
2

Rakuten

Rakuten Crimson House, 1-14-1 Tamagawa, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, JP, 158-0094
Last Update: 2025-11-24

Rakuten Group, Inc. (TSE: 4755) is a global technology leader in services that empower individuals, communities, businesses and society. Founded in Tokyo in 1997 as an online marketplace, Rakuten has expanded to offer services in e-commerce, fintech, digital content and communications to 2 billion members around the world. The Rakuten Group has more than 30,000 employees, and operations in 30 countries and regions. For more information visit https://global.rakuten.com/corp/.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 10,677
Subsidiaries: 24
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/salesloft.jpeg
Salesloft
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/rakuten.jpeg
Rakuten
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
Salesloft
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Rakuten
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Salesloft has 1263.64% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rakuten in 2025.

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

Salesloft cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Rakuten cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/salesloft.jpeg
Salesloft
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: compromised vendor (Salesloft), stolen authentication tokens (Salesforce Drift), cascading supply chain exploitation
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: data leak site hosting, forum-based extortion
Motivation: financial gain, reputation, disruption
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Compromised GitHub Repository, Stolen OAuth Token, Privilege Escalation via Drift Integration, AI-Powered Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Data Theft, Espionage, Financial Gain (Potential), Supply Chain Disruption
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rakuten.jpeg
Rakuten
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Insider Wrongdoing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2018
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Salesloft company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Rakuten company.

In the current year, Salesloft company has reported more cyber incidents than Rakuten company.

Salesloft company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Rakuten company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Rakuten company and Salesloft company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Rakuten company nor Salesloft company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Salesloft company nor Rakuten company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Salesloft nor Rakuten holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Rakuten company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Salesloft company.

Rakuten company employs more people globally than Salesloft company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Salesloft nor Rakuten holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Salesloft nor Rakuten holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Salesloft nor Rakuten holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Salesloft nor Rakuten holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Salesloft nor Rakuten holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Salesloft nor Rakuten 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