Comparison Overview

Swedbank

VS

Chase

Swedbank

Landsvägen 40, SE-172 63, SE, Sundbyberg
Last Update: 2026-01-19
Between 800 and 849

Since 1820, Swedbank has been the bank for the many households and businesses. We are a modern financial services platform focused on customer satisfaction. Our goal is to encourage people to save for a better future, and we aim to help people, businesses and society to grow by promoting a healthy and sustainable economy. As an equal opportunity employer, we believe that diversity and equality help us to grow and achieve our goals. We encourage a culture built on trust, respect and our values - open, simple and caring. With 7.4 million private customers and more than 600,000 corporate and organisational customers, we have a leading position in our home markets of Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. This position also enables us to offer our employees great opportunities to grow and develop. Working here is about creating value for our customers, our colleagues and society. Inspiring and learning from one another is what moves us forward, and by working together, we make a difference. Find our policy for social media here: www.swedbank.se/om-oss/policy-fb

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 15,271
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Chase

270 Park Avenue, New York, 10172, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

At Chase, we’re dedicated to helping you succeed. Whether you’re in need of banking, credit cards, mortgages, auto financing, investment guidance, small business support, or payment solutions, we’re beside you every step of the way. For customer service, contact us via chase.com/customerservice. See full social media terms and conditions at chase.com/socialterms. JPMorgan Chase is an Equal Opportunity Employer, including Disability/Veterans.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 34,537
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
10
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/swedbank.jpeg
Swedbank
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/chase.jpeg
Chase
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
Swedbank
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Chase
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Swedbank in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Chase in 2026.

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

Swedbank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Chase cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/swedbank.jpeg
Swedbank
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chase.jpeg
Chase
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Compromised User Account
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Legitimate software and open-source pen-testing tools
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, Chase company and Swedbank company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Chase company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Swedbank company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

Neither Chase company nor Swedbank company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Chase company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Swedbank company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Swedbank nor Chase holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Chase company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Swedbank company.

Chase company employs more people globally than Swedbank company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Swedbank nor Chase holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Swedbank nor Chase holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Swedbank nor Chase holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Swedbank nor Chase holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Swedbank nor Chase holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Swedbank nor Chase holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N