Comparison Overview

Trustly

VS

SONAE

Trustly

Rådmansgatan 40, Stockholm, 113 57, SE
Last Update: 2025-12-12
Between 700 and 749

Trustly was launched in 2008 and has grown rapidly over the past 16 years to become a global leader in Open Banking Payment solutions. With a mission to make online payments as seamless as possible, Trustly offers an innovative payment platform, bridging the gap between consumers and merchants. Its technology ensures that transactions are processed in real-time, providing both speed and security for all parties involved. Trustly's dedication to revolutionizing the payments industry is reflected in its collaborations with major brands such as PayPal, eBay, and Hargreaves Lansdown in Europe and FanDuel, T-Mobile, and Coinbase in North America. To date, Trustly has transformed the performance and experience of payments for over 9,000 merchants in 30+ markets, connecting them to 650+ million consumers through 12,000 banks. Trustly is a licensed Payment Institution under the second payment services directive (PSD2). It operates under the supervision of the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority in the EU, EEA and the Financial Conduct Authority in the UK. In the US, Trustly is state-regulated as required to serve its target markets.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 889
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

SONAE

Maia, Porto, Porto, 4470-177, PT
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

Sonae exists to create a lasting positive impact on businesses, people, communities and on the planet. Managing a diverse portfolio of businesses in retail, financial services, technology, investments, shopping centres and telecommunications, Sonae makes the most of its expertise and pushes itself to create the future we all want and need. Creating today a better tomorrow, for all.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 22,394
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/trustly.jpeg
Trustly
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/sonae.jpeg
SONAE
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
Trustly
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
SONAE
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

Trustly has 20.48% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SONAE in 2025.

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

Trustly cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

SONAE cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/trustly.jpeg
Trustly
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Phishing Kit
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sonae.jpeg
SONAE
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, Trustly company has reported more cyber incidents than SONAE company.

Neither SONAE company nor Trustly company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither SONAE company nor Trustly company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Trustly company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while SONAE company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Trustly company nor SONAE company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Trustly nor SONAE holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

SONAE company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Trustly company.

SONAE company employs more people globally than Trustly company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Trustly nor SONAE holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Trustly nor SONAE holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Trustly nor SONAE holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Trustly nor SONAE holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Trustly nor SONAE holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Trustly nor SONAE holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N