Comparison Overview

Xelix

VS

UKG

Xelix

Senna Building, London, England, E2 8JF, GB
Last Update: 2025-03-06 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000
https://hubs.la/Q02Gbht90

Excellent

Xelix is an AI-powered Control Centre for Accounts Payable teams. We work with some of the largest global companies to automate and enhance their financial control processes. We take the pain, risk, and inefficiency out of five core Accounts Payable processes: - Overpayment and fraud prevention - Vendor statement reconciliation - Master vendor data cleansing - AP/P2P reporting - Vendor query management Xelix simply bolts onto your existing finance systems and can be up and running in 4 weeks. The system is cloud-based and flexible, making it suitable for large organisations across all sectors. Our customers typically see ROI within their first month of going live. We pride ourselves on providing 10/10 customer support and love to co-develop functionality with customers. Hear from our customers here: https://www.g2.com/products/xelix/reviews Finally, we work with a wide range of partners including multi-national BPOs, global and boutique consultancies, as well as independent P2P advisors. For more information on this, please head to the Partners page on our website. For more information on our platform, please check out our Linkedin product pages.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 103
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

UKG

Last Update: 2024-08-12 (UTC)

Strong

Between 800 and 900
https://www.ukg.com/

At UKG, our purpose is people. As strong believers in the power of culture and belonging as the secret to success, we champion great workplaces and build lifelong partnerships with our customers to show what’s possible when businesses invest in their people. One of the world’s leading HCM cloud companies today, UKG and our Life-work Technology approach to HR, pay, time, and culture solutions for all people helps 80,000 organizations around the globe and across every industry anticipate and adapt to their employees’ needs beyond just work. To learn more, visit ukg.com. UKG Social Media Guidelines available at https://www.ukg.com/ukg-social-media-guidelines.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 14,208
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/xelix..jpeg
Xelix
—
ISO 27001
Not verified
—
SOC 2
Not verified
—
GDPR
No public badge
—
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/UKG.jpeg
UKG
—
ISO 27001
Not verified
—
SOC 2
Not verified
—
GDPR
No public badge
—
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Xelix
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
UKG
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Xelix in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UKG in 2025.

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

Xelix cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

UKG cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/xelix..jpeg
Xelix
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/UKG.jpeg
UKG
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2021
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Xelix company company demonstrates a stronger AI risk posture compared to UKG company company, reflecting its advanced AI governance and monitoring frameworks.

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

In the current year, UKG company and Xelix company have not reported any cyber incidents.

UKG company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Xelix company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

Neither UKG company nor Xelix company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Xelix company nor UKG company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

UKG company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Xelix company.

UKG company employs more people globally than Xelix company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was found in LaChatterie Verger up to 1.2.10. This impacts the function redirectToAuthorization of the file /src/main/services/mcp/oauth/provider.ts. The manipulation of the argument URL results in deserialization. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
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
References
Description

A vulnerability has been found in SeriaWei ZKEACMS up to 4.3. This affects the function Delete of the file src/ZKEACMS.Redirection/Controllers/UrlRedirectionController.cs of the component POST Request Handler. The manipulation leads to improper authorization. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/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
References
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: jfs: fix invalid free of JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap in diUnmount syzbot found an invalid-free in diUnmount: BUG: KASAN: double-free in slab_free mm/slub.c:3661 [inline] BUG: KASAN: double-free in __kmem_cache_free+0x71/0x110 mm/slub.c:3674 Free of addr ffff88806f410000 by task syz-executor131/3632 CPU: 0 PID: 3632 Comm: syz-executor131 Not tainted 6.1.0-rc7-syzkaller-00012-gca57f02295f1 #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/26/2022 Call Trace: <TASK> __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline] dump_stack_lvl+0x1b1/0x28e lib/dump_stack.c:106 print_address_description+0x74/0x340 mm/kasan/report.c:284 print_report+0x107/0x1f0 mm/kasan/report.c:395 kasan_report_invalid_free+0xac/0xd0 mm/kasan/report.c:460 ____kasan_slab_free+0xfb/0x120 kasan_slab_free include/linux/kasan.h:177 [inline] slab_free_hook mm/slub.c:1724 [inline] slab_free_freelist_hook+0x12e/0x1a0 mm/slub.c:1750 slab_free mm/slub.c:3661 [inline] __kmem_cache_free+0x71/0x110 mm/slub.c:3674 diUnmount+0xef/0x100 fs/jfs/jfs_imap.c:195 jfs_umount+0x108/0x370 fs/jfs/jfs_umount.c:63 jfs_put_super+0x86/0x190 fs/jfs/super.c:194 generic_shutdown_super+0x130/0x310 fs/super.c:492 kill_block_super+0x79/0xd0 fs/super.c:1428 deactivate_locked_super+0xa7/0xf0 fs/super.c:332 cleanup_mnt+0x494/0x520 fs/namespace.c:1186 task_work_run+0x243/0x300 kernel/task_work.c:179 exit_task_work include/linux/task_work.h:38 [inline] do_exit+0x664/0x2070 kernel/exit.c:820 do_group_exit+0x1fd/0x2b0 kernel/exit.c:950 __do_sys_exit_group kernel/exit.c:961 [inline] __se_sys_exit_group kernel/exit.c:959 [inline] __x64_sys_exit_group+0x3b/0x40 kernel/exit.c:959 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x3d/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd [...] JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap is not setting to NULL after free in diUnmount. If jfs_remount() free JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap but then failed at diMount(). JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap will be freed once again. Fix this problem by setting JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap to NULL after free.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
References
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: qla2xxx: Fix deletion race condition System crash when using debug kernel due to link list corruption. The cause of the link list corruption is due to session deletion was allowed to queue up twice. Here's the internal trace that show the same port was allowed to double queue for deletion on different cpu. 20808683956 015 qla2xxx [0000:13:00.1]-e801:4: Scheduling sess ffff93ebf9306800 for deletion 50:06:0e:80:12:48:ff:50 fc4_type 1 20808683957 027 qla2xxx [0000:13:00.1]-e801:4: Scheduling sess ffff93ebf9306800 for deletion 50:06:0e:80:12:48:ff:50 fc4_type 1 Move the clearing/setting of deleted flag lock.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
References
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/ksm: fix race with VMA iteration and mm_struct teardown exit_mmap() will tear down the VMAs and maple tree with the mmap_lock held in write mode. Ensure that the maple tree is still valid by checking ksm_test_exit() after taking the mmap_lock in read mode, but before the for_each_vma() iterator dereferences a destroyed maple tree. Since the maple tree is destroyed, the flags telling lockdep to check an external lock has been cleared. Skip the for_each_vma() iterator to avoid dereferencing a maple tree without the external lock flag, which would create a lockdep warning.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
References