Comparison Overview

Ultralytics

VS

Microsoft

Ultralytics

undefined, Frederick, Maryland, 21703, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 700 and 749

Ultralytics is on a mission to empower people and companies to unleash the positive potential of AI. We make model development accessible, efficient to train, and easy to deploy. It’s been a remarkable journey, but we’re just getting started. Bring your models to life with our vision AI tools: 🔘 Ultralytics HUB - Create and train sophisticated models in seconds with no code for web and mobile 🔘 Ultralytics YOLO - Explore our state-of-the-art AI architecture to train and deploy your highly accurate AI models like a pro

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 36
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Microsoft

1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington, US, 98052
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 650 and 699

Every company has a mission. What's ours? To empower every person and every organization to achieve more. We believe technology can and should be a force for good and that meaningful innovation contributes to a brighter world in the future and today. Our culture doesn’t just encourage curiosity; it embraces it. Each day we make progress together by showing up as our authentic selves. We show up with a learn-it-all mentality. We show up cheering on others, knowing their success doesn't diminish our own. We show up every day open to learning our own biases, changing our behavior, and inviting in differences. Because impact matters. Microsoft operates in 190 countries and is made up of approximately 228,000 passionate employees worldwide.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 220,893
Subsidiaries: 51
12-month incidents
21
Known data breaches
10
Attack type number
5

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ultralytics.jpeg
Ultralytics
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/microsoft.jpeg
Microsoft
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
Ultralytics
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Microsoft
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ultralytics in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Microsoft has 4783.72% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Ultralytics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Microsoft cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ultralytics.jpeg
Ultralytics
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: AI Model Hijacking
Motivation: Financial
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2024
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Malicious Software Update
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/microsoft.jpeg
Microsoft
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: AI Agent Exploitation (e.g., autonomous decision-making, broad data access), SaaS Infrastructure Compromise (e.g., widely-deployed firewalls), Identity Sprawl (e.g., over-permissioned roles, shadow identities), Synthetic Social Engineering (e.g., deepfakes, adaptive phishing), Critical Infrastructure Targeting (e.g., energy grids, water systems), Supply Chain Attacks (e.g., multi-cloud complexities), Concentrated Infrastructure Risk (e.g., Microsoft, Amazon, Google backbones)
Motivation: Financial Gain (e.g., ransomware, data exfiltration), Geopolitical Disruption (e.g., critical infrastructure sabotage), Espionage (e.g., AI-driven data theft), Market Manipulation (e.g., disrupting cloud providers), Talent Pipeline Exploitation (e.g., targeting entry-level job gaps)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Malicious Extension (VS Code Marketplace), Trojanized npm Packages, GitHub C2, Postinstall Scripts
Motivation: Testing/Experimental (susvsex), Financial Gain (Vidar Infostealer), Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Microsoft Teams Chats/Messages, Malicious Links/Files in Teams, Fake Profiles/Impersonation, Exploiting Privacy Mode Disabled, Guest/External Access Abuse, Public Meeting Links, Teams as Command-and-Control (C2), Ransom Demands via Teams
Motivation: Financial Gain (e.g., Ransomware, Data Theft), Espionage (Corporate/State), Credential Theft, Lateral Movement in Target Networks, Disruption (e.g., Locking Personal/Work Files)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Microsoft company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Ultralytics company.

In the current year, Microsoft company has reported more cyber incidents than Ultralytics company.

Microsoft company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Ultralytics company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

Both Microsoft company and Ultralytics company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

Both Ultralytics company and Microsoft company have disclosed vulnerabilities.

Neither Ultralytics nor Microsoft holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Microsoft company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Ultralytics company.

Microsoft company employs more people globally than Ultralytics company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Ultralytics nor Microsoft holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Ultralytics nor Microsoft holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Ultralytics nor Microsoft holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Ultralytics nor Microsoft holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Ultralytics nor Microsoft holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Ultralytics nor Microsoft holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Sigstore Timestamp Authority is a service for issuing RFC 3161 timestamps. Prior to 2.0.3, Function api.ParseJSONRequest currently splits (via a call to strings.Split) an optionally-provided OID (which is untrusted data) on periods. Similarly, function api.getContentType splits the Content-Type header (which is also untrusted data) on an application string. As a result, in the face of a malicious request with either an excessively long OID in the payload containing many period characters or a malformed Content-Type header, a call to api.ParseJSONRequest or api.getContentType incurs allocations of O(n) bytes (where n stands for the length of the function's argument). This vulnerability is fixed in 2.0.3.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Monkeytype is a minimalistic and customizable typing test. In 25.49.0 and earlier, there is improper handling of user input which allows an attacker to execute malicious javascript on anyone viewing a malicious quote submission. quote.text and quote.source are user input, and they're inserted straight into the DOM. If they contain HTML tags, they will be rendered (after some escaping using quotes and textarea tags).

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

SysReptor is a fully customizable pentest reporting platform. Prior to 2025.102, there is a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability allows authenticated users to execute malicious JavaScript in the context of other logged-in users by uploading malicious JavaScript files in the web UI. This vulnerability is fixed in 2025.102.

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

Taiko Alethia is an Ethereum-equivalent, permissionless, based rollup designed to scale Ethereum without compromising its fundamental properties. In 2.3.1 and earlier, TaikoInbox._verifyBatches (packages/protocol/contracts/layer1/based/TaikoInbox.sol:627-678) advanced the local tid to whatever transition matched the current blockHash before knowing whether that batch would actually be verified. When the loop later broke (e.g., cooldown window not yet passed or transition invalidated), the function still wrote that newer tid into batches[lastVerifiedBatchId].verifiedTransitionId after decrementing batchId. Result: the last verified batch could end up pointing at a transition index from the next batch (often zeroed), corrupting the verified chain pointer.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
Description

A flaw has been found in youlaitech youlai-mall 1.0.0/2.0.0. Affected is the function getById/updateAddress/deleteAddress of the file /mall-ums/app-api/v1/addresses/. Executing manipulation can lead to improper control of dynamically-identified variables. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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