Comparison Overview

Vertiv

VS

Panasonic

Vertiv

505 N. Cleveland Ave., Westerville, Columbus, OH, 43082, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

Vertiv (NYSE: VRT) brings together hardware, software, analytics and ongoing services to enable its customers’ vital applications to run continuously, perform optimally and grow with their business needs. Vertiv solves the most important challenges facing today’s data centers, communication networks and commercial and industrial facilities with a portfolio of power, cooling and IT infrastructure solutions and services that extends from the cloud to the edge of the network. Headquartered in Westerville, Ohio, USA, Vertiv does business in more than 130 countries. For more information, and for the latest news and content from Vertiv, visit Vertiv.com.

NAICS: 335
NAICS Definition: Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees: 14,827
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Panasonic

Ooaza Kadoma, 1006, Kadoma-shi, Osaka, 571-8501, JP
Last Update: 2025-12-09

Founded in 1918, and today a global leader in developing innovative technologies and solutions for wide-ranging applications in the consumer electronics, housing, automotive, industry, communications, and energy sectors worldwide, the Panasonic Group switched to an operating company system on April 1, 2022 with Panasonic Holdings Corporation serving as a holding company and eight companies positioned under its umbrella. The Group reported consolidated net sales of 8,496.4 billion yen for the year ended March 31, 2024.

NAICS: 335
NAICS Definition: Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees: 28,891
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/vertiv.jpeg
Vertiv
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/panasonic.jpeg
Panasonic
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
Vertiv
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Panasonic
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Vertiv in 2025.

Incidents vs Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

Panasonic has 17.65% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Vertiv cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Panasonic cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/vertiv.jpeg
Vertiv
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/panasonic.jpeg
Panasonic
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Misconfigured DNS CNAME records
Motivation: Spread malware and perpetrate online scams
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, Panasonic company has reported more cyber incidents than Vertiv company.

Panasonic company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Vertiv company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

Neither Panasonic company nor Vertiv company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Panasonic company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Vertiv company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Vertiv nor Panasonic holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Panasonic company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Vertiv company.

Panasonic company employs more people globally than Vertiv company, reflecting its scale as a Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing.

Neither Vertiv nor Panasonic holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Vertiv nor Panasonic holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Vertiv nor Panasonic holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Vertiv nor Panasonic holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Vertiv nor Panasonic holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Vertiv nor Panasonic 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