Comparison Overview

Travel + Leisure Co.

VS

JW Marriott

Travel + Leisure Co.

6277 Sea Harbor Dr, Orlando, Florida, US, 32821
Last Update: 2026-01-17
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.travelandleisureco.com

Travel + Leisure Co., the world's leading vacation ownership and membership travel company, provides more than six million vacations to travelers every year. The company’s extensive Vacation Ownership portfolio includes trusted and iconic vacation club brands with a combined 270+ resorts worldwide, offering quality, flexibility, and value to more than 800,000 timeshare owners. Through its Travel and Membership business line, the company unlocks even more travel inspiration and opportunities via its signature subscription travel club, Travel + Leisure GO, and pioneering timeshare exchange network, RCI. With hospitality and responsible tourism at its heart, the company’s 19,000+ dedicated associates around the globe help the company achieve its mission to put the world on vacation.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 14,402
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

JW Marriott

None
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 800 and 849
http://www.jwmarriott.com

No loud pretense. No excess formalities. Just understated elegance you’ll feel the moment you walk into one of over 80 worldwide destinations. JW Marriott is part of Marriott International’s luxury portfolio and consists of beautiful properties in gateway cities and distinctive resort locations in 28 countries around the world. These elegant hotels cater to today’s sophisticated, self-assured travelers, offering them the quiet luxury they seek in a warmly authentic, relaxed atmosphere lacking in pretense. JW Marriott properties artfully provide highly crafted, anticipatory experiences that are reflective of their locale so that their guests have the time to focus on what is most important to them.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 15,863
Subsidiaries: 36
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/travelleisureco.jpeg
Travel + Leisure Co.
—
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/jw_marriott.jpeg
JW Marriott
—
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
Travel + Leisure Co.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
JW Marriott
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Travel + Leisure Co. in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JW Marriott in 2026.

Incident History — Travel + Leisure Co. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Travel + Leisure Co. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — JW Marriott (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JW Marriott cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/travelleisureco.jpeg
Travel + Leisure Co.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jw_marriott.jpeg
JW Marriott
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2022
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

JW Marriott company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Travel + Leisure Co. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

JW Marriott company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Travel + Leisure Co. company has not reported any.

In the current year, JW Marriott company and Travel + Leisure Co. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither JW Marriott company nor Travel + Leisure Co. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

JW Marriott company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Travel + Leisure Co. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither JW Marriott company nor Travel + Leisure Co. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Travel + Leisure Co. company nor JW Marriott company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Travel + Leisure Co. nor JW Marriott holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

JW Marriott company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Travel + Leisure Co. company.

JW Marriott company employs more people globally than Travel + Leisure Co. company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Travel + Leisure Co. nor JW Marriott holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Travel + Leisure Co. nor JW Marriott holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Travel + Leisure Co. nor JW Marriott holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Travel + Leisure Co. nor JW Marriott holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Travel + Leisure Co. nor JW Marriott holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Travel + Leisure Co. nor JW Marriott holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
References
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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
References
Description

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References