Comparison Overview

JW Marriott

VS

Club Med

JW Marriott

None
Last Update: 2026-04-01
View Profile
Between 850 and 899
http://www.jwmarriott.com

No loud pretense. No excess formalities. Just understated elegance you’ll feel the moment you walk into one of over 80 worldwide destinations. JW Marriott is part of Marriott International’s luxury portfolio and consists of beautiful properties in gateway cities and distinctive resort locations in 28 countries around the world. These elegant hotels cater to today’s sophisticated, self-assured travelers, offering them the quiet luxury they seek in a warmly authentic, relaxed atmosphere lacking in pretense. JW Marriott properties artfully provide highly crafted, anticipatory experiences that are reflective of their locale so that their guests have the time to focus on what is most important to them.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 15,863
Subsidiaries: 36
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2
View Profile

Club Med

Paris, FR
Last Update: 2026-04-04
Between 800 and 849
http://www.clubmed.com

Since it was founded in 1950 and it created the all-inclusive vacation concept, Club Med has been the world leader on its market, and has developed a resolutely upscale, friendly and multicultural spirit. Club Med boasts 70 resorts located in the most beautiful sites in the world, a cruise ship and Luxury Villas & Chalets and, now more than ever, is associated with dreams and happiness. There are 20,000 Gentle Organizers (G.Os) and Gentle Employees (G.Es) at Club Med, who work in the villages, but also at the Paris, Lyon, Singapore, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro and Miami headquarters, in the sales offices situated in dozens of countries and in travel agencies.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 13,203
Subsidiaries: 34
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jw_marriott.jpeg
JW Marriott
—
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/club-med.jpeg
Club Med
—
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
JW Marriott
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Club Med
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JW Marriott in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Club Med in 2026.

Incident History — JW Marriott (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JW Marriott cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Club Med (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Club Med cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jw_marriott.jpeg
JW Marriott
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2022
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/club-med.jpeg
Club Med
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

JW Marriott company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Club Med company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

JW Marriott company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Club Med company has not reported any.

In the current year, Club Med company and JW Marriott company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Club Med company nor JW Marriott company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

JW Marriott company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Club Med company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Club Med company nor JW Marriott company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither JW Marriott company nor Club Med company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither JW Marriott nor Club Med holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

JW Marriott company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Club Med company.

JW Marriott company employs more people globally than Club Med company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither JW Marriott nor Club Med holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither JW Marriott nor Club Med holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither JW Marriott nor Club Med holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither JW Marriott nor Club Med holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither JW Marriott nor Club Med holds HIPAA certification.

Neither JW Marriott nor Club Med holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

nimiq/core-rs-albatross is a Rust implementation of the Nimiq Proof-of-Stake protocol based on the Albatross consensus algorithm. Prior to version 1.3.0, two peer-facing consensus request handlers assume that the history index is always available and call blockchain.history_store.history_index().unwrap() directly. That assumption is false by construction. HistoryStoreProxy::history_index() explicitly returns None for the valid HistoryStoreProxy::WithoutIndex state. when a full node is syncing or otherwise running without the history index, a remote peer can send RequestTransactionsProof or RequestTransactionReceiptsByAddress and trigger an Option::unwrap() panic on the request path. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.0.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 1.5.95, FileTools.download_file() in praisonaiagents validates the destination path but performs no validation on the url parameter, passing it directly to httpx.stream() with follow_redirects=True. An attacker who controls the URL can reach any host accessible from the server including cloud metadata services and internal network services. This issue has been patched in version 1.5.95.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.97, OAuthManager.validate_token() returns True for any token not found in its internal store, which is empty by default. Any HTTP request to the MCP server with an arbitrary Bearer token is treated as authenticated, granting full access to all registered tools and agent capabilities. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.97.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.97, the PraisonAI Gateway server accepts WebSocket connections at /ws and serves agent topology at /info with no authentication. Any network client can connect, enumerate registered agents, and send arbitrary messages to agents and their tool sets. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.97.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.90, MCPToolIndex.search_tools() compiles a caller-supplied string directly as a Python regular expression with no validation, sanitization, or timeout. A crafted regex causes catastrophic backtracking in the re engine, blocking the Python thread for hundreds of seconds and causing a complete service outage. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.90.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
References