Comparison Overview

Splunk

VS

SAP

Splunk

250 Brannan St, San Francisco, California, US, 94107
Last Update: 2025-12-18
Between 750 and 799

Splunk is helping to build a safer and more resilient digital world by equipping customers with the unified security and observability platform they need to keep their organization securely up and running — no matter what digital disruptions come their way.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 9,558
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

SAP

Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16, None, Walldorf, BW, DE, 69190
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 750 and 799

SAP is the leading enterprise application and business AI company. We stand at the intersection of business and technology, where our innovations are designed to directly address real business challenges and produce real-world impacts. Our solutions are the backbone for the world’s most complex and demanding processes. SAP’s integrated portfolio unites the elements of modern organizations — from workforce and financials to customers and supply chains — into a unified ecosystem that drives progress. SAP privacy statement for followers: www.sap.com/sps Our Community Guidelines At SAP, we're committed to fostering meaningful conversations that respect everyone in our community. To maintain a positive environment, we moderate comments that: • Target individuals personally, including our employees, customers, or partners • Contain discriminatory, harassing, or threatening language/content • Share personal information without consent • Promote misinformation or spam or 3rd-party links We believe in open dialogue and constructive feedback, but we will remove content that violates these guidelines without notice. We appreciate your understanding and contribution to a respectful community. For questions about our moderation practices, please DM or contact us at [email protected].

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 133,175
Subsidiaries: 17
12-month incidents
5
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/splunk.jpeg
Splunk
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/sap.jpeg
SAP
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
Splunk
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
SAP
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Splunk has 75.44% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

SAP has 777.19% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Splunk cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

SAP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/splunk.jpeg
Splunk
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Malicious File Uploads, Privilege Escalation
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sap.jpeg
SAP
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network, RFC-Exposed Function Module, ABAP Code Injection
Motivation: Data Theft, Data Manipulation, Privilege Escalation, Credential Theft, Operational Disruption, Potential Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network (RMI-P4 module), Path Traversal (SAP Print Service), File Upload (SAP Supplier Relationship Management)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Unauthenticated upload of executable binaries
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

SAP company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Splunk company.

In the current year, SAP company has reported more cyber incidents than Splunk company.

SAP company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Splunk company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

Neither SAP company nor Splunk company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Both Splunk company and SAP company have disclosed vulnerabilities.

Neither Splunk nor SAP holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

SAP company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Splunk company.

SAP company employs more people globally than Splunk company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Splunk nor SAP holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Splunk nor SAP holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Splunk nor SAP holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Splunk nor SAP holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Splunk nor SAP holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Splunk nor SAP holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Zerobyte is a backup automation tool Zerobyte versions prior to 0.18.5 and 0.19.0 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability where authentication middleware is not properly applied to API endpoints. This results in certain API endpoints being accessible without valid session credentials. This is dangerous for those who have exposed Zerobyte to be used outside of their internal network. A fix has been applied in both version 0.19.0 and 0.18.5. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict network access to the Zerobyte instance to trusted networks only using firewall rules or network segmentation. This is only a temporary mitigation; upgrading is strongly recommended.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Open Source Point of Sale (opensourcepos) is a web based point of sale application written in PHP using CodeIgniter framework. Starting in version 3.4.0 and prior to version 3.4.2, a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the application's filter configuration. The CSRF protection mechanism was **explicitly disabled**, allowing the application to process state-changing requests (POST) without verifying a valid CSRF token. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this by hosting a malicious web page. If a logged-in administrator visits this page, their browser is forced to send unauthorized requests to the application. A successful exploit allows the attacker to silently create a new Administrator account with full privileges, leading to a complete takeover of the system and loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The vulnerability has been patched in version 3.4.2. The fix re-enables the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` and resolves associated AJAX race conditions by adjusting token regeneration settings. As a workaround, administrators can manually re-enable the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` by uncommenting the protection line. However, this is not recommended without applying the full patch, as it may cause functionality breakage in the Sales module due to token synchronization issues.

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

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Model Context Protocol (MCP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious MCP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered automatically without any user interaction besides opening the project in the IDE. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Language Server Protocol (LSP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious LSP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered when a user opens project file for which there is an LSP entry. A concerted effort by an attacker to seed a project settings file (`./zed/settings.json`) with malicious language server configurations could result in arbitrary code execution with the user's privileges if the user opens the project in Zed without reviewing the contents. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Storybook is a frontend workshop for building user interface components and pages in isolation. A vulnerability present starting in versions 7.0.0 and prior to versions 7.6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, and 10.1.10 relates to Storybook’s handling of environment variables defined in a `.env` file, which could, in specific circumstances, lead to those variables being unexpectedly bundled into the artifacts created by the `storybook build` command. When a built Storybook is published to the web, the bundle’s source is viewable, thus potentially exposing those variables to anyone with access. For a project to potentially be vulnerable to this issue, it must build the Storybook (i.e. run `storybook build` directly or indirectly) in a directory that contains a `.env` file (including variants like `.env.local`) and publish the built Storybook to the web. Storybooks built without a `.env` file at build time are not affected, including common CI-based builds where secrets are provided via platform environment variables rather than `.env` files. Storybook runtime environments (i.e. `storybook dev`) are not affected. Deployed applications that share a repo with your Storybook are not affected. Users should upgrade their Storybook—on both their local machines and CI environment—to version .6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, or 10.1.10 as soon as possible. Maintainers additionally recommend that users audit for any sensitive secrets provided via `.env` files and rotate those keys. Some projects may have been relying on the undocumented behavior at the heart of this issue and will need to change how they reference environment variables after this update. If a project can no longer read necessary environmental variable values, either prefix the variables with `STORYBOOK_` or use the `env` property in Storybook’s configuration to manually specify values. In either case, do not include sensitive secrets as they will be included in the built bundle.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L