Comparison Overview

SentinelOne

VS

CrowdStrike

SentinelOne

444 Castro St, Mountain View, California, 94041, US
Last Update: 2025-05-05 (UTC)
Between 800 and 900

Strong

SentinelOne is a leading AI-powered cybersecurity company. The SentinelOne Singularity platform, built on the first unified Data Lake, is revolutionising security operations, with AI, solving use cases across Endpoint Protection, SIEM, Cloud Security, Identity Threat Detection and 24x7 Managed Threat Services. SentinelOne empowers the world to run securely by creating intelligent, data-driven systems that think for themselves, stay ahead of complexity and risk, and evolve on their own. Leading organizationsโ€”including Fortune 10, Fortune 500, and Global 2000 companies, as well as prominent governments โ€“ trust SentinelOne to Secure Tomorrowโ„ข. Learn more at sentinelone.com. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SentinelOne is recognized in leading 3rd party forums such as; - Gartner Endpoint Protection Magic Quadrant as a Leader 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 - Gartner Peer Insights Customer Choice for Endpoint Protection - Gartner Peer Insights Customer Choice Managed Detection & Response - Gartner Peer Insights Customer Choice Cloud-Native Application Protection Platform (CNAPP) - G2 #1 Ranked Cloud Workload Protection Platform - Mitre ATT&CK 100% Detections, No Delays 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 - Mitre Managed Services 100% Major Step Detections 2024 - Fortune Fifty 2024 - Deloitte Fast 500; 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 - CRN Cloud & Security 100 - CRN Most Influential CEO's - CRN Top 10 Coolest GenAI Products, PurpleAI To learn more about our products and services, please visit our website at sentinelone.com to schedule a demo

NAICS: 541514
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 2,880
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

CrowdStrike

None, None, Remote, None, US, None
Last Update: 2025-09-16 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000

CrowdStrike (Nasdaq: CRWD), a global cybersecurity leader, has redefined modern security with the worldโ€™s most advanced cloud-native platform for protecting critical areas of enterprise risk โ€” endpoints and cloud workloads, identity and data. Powered by the CrowdStrike Security Cloud and world-class AI, the CrowdStrike Falconยฎ platform leverages real-time indicators of attack, threat intelligence, evolving adversary tradecraft and enriched telemetry from across the enterprise to deliver hyper-accurate detections, automated protection and remediation, elite threat hunting and prioritized observability of vulnerabilities. Purpose-built in the cloud with a single lightweight-agent architecture, the Falcon platform delivers rapid and scalable deployment, superior protection and performance, reduced complexity and immediate time-to-value. CrowdStrike: We stop breaches.

NAICS: 541514
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 10,426
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sentinelone.jpeg
SentinelOne
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/crowdstrike.jpeg
CrowdStrike
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
SentinelOne
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CrowdStrike
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Computer and Network Security Industry Average (This Year)

SentinelOne has 270.37% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Computer and Network Security Industry Average (This Year)

CrowdStrike has 640.74% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History โ€” SentinelOne (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SentinelOne cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” CrowdStrike (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CrowdStrike cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sentinelone.jpeg
SentinelOne
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Motivation: Espionage, Preparing for potential conflict
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Exploitation of exposed network devices, PowerShell-based exfiltration script
Motivation: Cyberespionage and potential supply chain compromise
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/crowdstrike.jpeg
CrowdStrike
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: compromised npm packages, malicious dependency injection, post-install script execution
Motivation: credential harvesting, unauthorized access, potential follow-on attacks
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Process Suspension
Motivation: Bypass Detection Mechanisms
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Fake job postings and malicious downloads
Motivation: Cryptomining
Blog: Blog

FAQ

CrowdStrike company company demonstrates a stronger AI risk posture compared to SentinelOne company company, reflecting its advanced AI governance and monitoring frameworks.

CrowdStrike company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to SentinelOne company.

In the current year, CrowdStrike company has reported more cyber incidents than SentinelOne company.

Neither CrowdStrike company nor SentinelOne company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

Both CrowdStrike company and SentinelOne company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

CrowdStrike company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while SentinelOne company has not reported such incidents publicly.

SentinelOne company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to CrowdStrike company.

CrowdStrike company employs more people globally than SentinelOne company, reflecting its scale as a Computer and Network Security.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Apache Geode is vulnerable to CSRF attacks through GET requests to the Management and Monitoring REST API that could allow an attacker who has tricked a user into giving up their Geode session credentials to submit malicious commands on the target system on behalf of the authenticated user. This issue affects Apache Geode: versions 1.10 through 1.15.1 Users are recommended to upgrade to version 1.15.2, which fixes the issue.

Description

The Related Posts Lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via admin settings in all versions up to, and including, 1.12 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with administrator-level permissions and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. This only affects multi-site installations and installations where unfiltered_html has been disabled.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

The Theme Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'theme_editor_theme' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to achieve remote code execution via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

A vulnerability has been found in Nixdorf Wincor PORT IO Driver up to 1.0.0.1. This affects the function sub_11100 in the library wnport.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. Such manipulation leads to stack-based buffer overflow. Local access is required to approach this attack. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Upgrading to version 3.0.0.1 is able to mitigate this issue. Upgrading the affected component is recommended. The vendor was contacted beforehand and was able to provide a patch very early.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.8
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 7.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: mscc: ocelot: Fix use-after-free caused by cyclic delayed work The origin code calls cancel_delayed_work() in ocelot_stats_deinit() to cancel the cyclic delayed work item ocelot->stats_work. However, cancel_delayed_work() may fail to cancel the work item if it is already executing. While destroy_workqueue() does wait for all pending work items in the work queue to complete before destroying the work queue, it cannot prevent the delayed work item from being rescheduled within the ocelot_check_stats_work() function. This limitation exists because the delayed work item is only enqueued into the work queue after its timer expires. Before the timer expiration, destroy_workqueue() has no visibility of this pending work item. Once the work queue appears empty, destroy_workqueue() proceeds with destruction. When the timer eventually expires, the delayed work item gets queued again, leading to the following warning: workqueue: cannot queue ocelot_check_stats_work on wq ocelot-switch-stats WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 0 at kernel/workqueue.c:2255 __queue_work+0x875/0xaf0 ... RIP: 0010:__queue_work+0x875/0xaf0 ... RSP: 0018:ffff88806d108b10 EFLAGS: 00010086 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000101 RCX: 0000000000000027 RDX: 0000000000000027 RSI: 0000000000000004 RDI: ffff88806d123e88 RBP: ffffffff813c3170 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed100da247d2 R10: ffffed100da247d1 R11: ffff88806d123e8b R12: ffff88800c00f000 R13: ffff88800d7285c0 R14: ffff88806d0a5580 R15: ffff88800d7285a0 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8880e5725000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007fe18e45ea10 CR3: 0000000005e6c000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 Call Trace: <IRQ> ? kasan_report+0xc6/0xf0 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 call_timer_fn+0x25/0x1c0 __run_timer_base.part.0+0x3be/0x8c0 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 ? rcu_sched_clock_irq+0xb06/0x27d0 ? __pfx___run_timer_base.part.0+0x10/0x10 ? try_to_wake_up+0xb15/0x1960 ? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x80/0xe0 ? __pfx__raw_spin_lock_irq+0x10/0x10 tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x603/0x7e0 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x10/0x10 ? sched_balance_trigger+0x1c0/0x9f0 ? sched_tick+0x221/0x5a0 ? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x80/0xe0 ? __pfx__raw_spin_lock_irq+0x10/0x10 ? tick_nohz_handler+0x339/0x440 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x10/0x10 __walk_groups.isra.0+0x42/0x150 tmigr_handle_remote+0x1f4/0x2e0 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote+0x10/0x10 ? ktime_get+0x60/0x140 ? lapic_next_event+0x11/0x20 ? clockevents_program_event+0x1d4/0x2a0 ? hrtimer_interrupt+0x322/0x780 handle_softirqs+0x16a/0x550 irq_exit_rcu+0xaf/0xe0 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x70/0x80 </IRQ> ... The following diagram reveals the cause of the above warning: CPU 0 (remove) | CPU 1 (delayed work callback) mscc_ocelot_remove() | ocelot_deinit() | ocelot_check_stats_work() ocelot_stats_deinit() | cancel_delayed_work()| ... | queue_delayed_work() destroy_workqueue() | (wait a time) | __queue_work() //UAF The above scenario actually constitutes a UAF vulnerability. The ocelot_stats_deinit() is only invoked when initialization failure or resource destruction, so we must ensure that any delayed work items cannot be rescheduled. Replace cancel_delayed_work() with disable_delayed_work_sync() to guarantee proper cancellation of the delayed work item and ensure completion of any currently executing work before the workqueue is deallocated. A deadlock concern was considered: ocelot_stats_deinit() is called in a process context and is not holding any locks that the delayed work item might also need. Therefore, the use of the _sync() variant is safe here. This bug was identified through static analysis. To reproduce the issue and validate the fix, I simulated ocelot-swit ---truncated---