Comparison Overview

GeBBS Healthcare Solutions

VS

Mercy

GeBBS Healthcare Solutions

100 S Shore Dr, East Haven, 06512, US
Last Update: 2026-03-23
Between 750 and 799

GeBBS Healthcare Solutions is a KLAS rated leading provider of Revenue Cycle Management (RCM) services and Risk Adjustment solutions. GeBBS’ innovative technology, combined with over 14,000-strong global workforce, helps clients improve financial performance, adhere to compliance, and enhance the patient experience. Headquartered in East Haven, CT, GeBBS is backed by EQT, one of the premier private equity funds in Europe. GeBBS has won numerous accolades for its medical coding outsourcing and medical billing outsourcing, including being ranked in Modern Healthcare’s Top 10 Largest RCM Firms, Black Book Market Research’s Top 20 RCM Outsourcing Services, and Inc. 5000’s fastest growing private companies in the U.S. For more information, please visit www.gebbs.com.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,106
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Mercy

15740 South Outer Forty Road, Chesterfield, 63017 , US
Last Update: 2026-03-29
Between 750 and 799

Mercy, one of the 15 largest U.S. health systems and named the top large system in the U.S. for excellent patient experience by NRC Health, serves millions annually with nationally recognized care and one of the nation’s largest and highest performing Accountable Care Organizations in quality and cost. Mercy is a highly integrated, multi-state health care system including 55 acute care and specialty (heart, children’s, orthopedic and rehab) hospitals, convenient and urgent care locations, imaging centers and pharmacies. Mercy has over 1,000 physician practice locations and outpatient facilities, more than 5,000 physicians and advanced practitioners and more than 50,000 caregivers serving patients and families across Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma. Mercy also has clinics, outpatient services and outreach ministries in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. In fiscal year 2025 alone, Mercy provided more than half a billion dollars of free care and other community benefits, including traditional charity care and unreimbursed Medicaid.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 29,559
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gebbs-healthcare-solutions.jpeg
GeBBS Healthcare Solutions
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/mercy.jpeg
Mercy
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
GeBBS Healthcare Solutions
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Mercy
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GeBBS Healthcare Solutions in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mercy in 2026.

Incident History — GeBBS Healthcare Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GeBBS Healthcare Solutions cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Mercy cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gebbs-healthcare-solutions.jpeg
GeBBS Healthcare Solutions
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mercy.jpeg
Mercy
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Mercy company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to GeBBS Healthcare Solutions company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Mercy company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to GeBBS Healthcare Solutions company.

In the current year, Mercy company and GeBBS Healthcare Solutions company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Mercy company nor GeBBS Healthcare Solutions company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Mercy company nor GeBBS Healthcare Solutions company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Mercy company nor GeBBS Healthcare Solutions company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither GeBBS Healthcare Solutions company nor Mercy company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither GeBBS Healthcare Solutions nor Mercy holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Mercy company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to GeBBS Healthcare Solutions company.

Mercy company employs more people globally than GeBBS Healthcare Solutions company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither GeBBS Healthcare Solutions nor Mercy holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither GeBBS Healthcare Solutions nor Mercy holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither GeBBS Healthcare Solutions nor Mercy holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither GeBBS Healthcare Solutions nor Mercy holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither GeBBS Healthcare Solutions nor Mercy holds HIPAA certification.

Neither GeBBS Healthcare Solutions nor Mercy holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3300R 17.0.0cu.557_b20221024. This affects the function setLanCfg of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument lanIp leads to command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

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
Description

Perl versions from 5.9.4 before 5.40.4-RC1, from 5.41.0 before 5.42.2-RC1, from 5.43.0 before 5.43.9 contain a vulnerable version of Compress::Raw::Zlib. Compress::Raw::Zlib is included in the Perl package as a dual-life core module, and is vulnerable to CVE-2026-3381 due to a vendored version of zlib which has several vulnerabilities, including CVE-2026-27171. The bundled Compress::Raw::Zlib was updated to version 2.221 in Perl blead commit c75ae9cc164205e1b6d6dbd57bd2c65c8593fe94.

Description

Ghidra versions prior to 12.0.3 improperly process annotation directives embedded in automatically extracted binary data, resulting in arbitrary command execution when an analyst interacts with the UI. Specifically, the @execute annotation (which is intended for trusted, user-authored comments) is also parsed in comments generated during auto-analysis (such as CFStrings in Mach-O binaries). This allows a crafted binary to present seemingly benign clickable text which, when clicked, executes attacker-controlled commands on the analyst’s machine.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

A critical security vulnerability in parisneo/lollms versions up to 2.2.0 allows any authenticated user to accept or reject friend requests belonging to other users. The `respond_request()` function in `backend/routers/friends.py` does not implement proper authorization checks, enabling Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) attacks. Specifically, the `/api/friends/requests/{friendship_id}` endpoint fails to verify whether the authenticated user is part of the friendship or the intended recipient of the request. This vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access, privacy violations, and potential social engineering attacks. The issue has been addressed in version 2.2.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in parisneo/lollms versions prior to 2.2.0, specifically in the `/api/files/export-content` endpoint. The `_download_image_to_temp()` function in `backend/routers/files.py` fails to validate user-controlled URLs, allowing attackers to make arbitrary HTTP requests to internal services and cloud metadata endpoints. This vulnerability can lead to internal network access, cloud metadata access, information disclosure, port scanning, and potentially remote code execution.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N