Comparison Overview

LexisNexis

VS

Gainwell Technologies

LexisNexis

230 Park Avenue, New York City, 10017, US
Last Update: 2026-03-28

LexisNexis is a leading innovator of private, secure, and authoritative Legal AI solutions that help legal and business professionals draft full documents with ease, make informed decisions faster, and deliver outstanding work and improved outcomes, all powered by trusted content. LexisNexis Legal & Professional serves customers in more than 150 countries with 11,800 employees worldwide, and is part of RELX, a global provider of information-based analytics and decision tools for professional and business customers.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 10,705
Subsidiaries: 72
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
1

Gainwell Technologies

United States, US
Last Update: 2026-03-29

For 50 years, our nation’s federal Medicaid program has worked to improve the health, safety and well-being of America’s most vulnerable populations: low-income families, women and children, seniors, and those with disabilities. With positive health and cost outcomes that pierce inequities and impact economies, the success of these programs is inextricably tied to the prosperity of communities, individual states and the nation as a whole. We think that demands respect and, more importantly, is deserving of a lifetime commitment from innovators who can help those who operate within and around health and human services evolve — in any market at any stage. At Gainwell Technologies, that’s our sole focus. Built across more than five decades, Gainwell has intentionally seized opportunities to advance its digitally enabled services to meet agencies, health plans and MCOs where they are on their modernization journeys and propel them into the future of public health. Our commitment to innovation, deep experience and ability to leverage insights from customers across 50 states has allowed us to expand on next-generation, cloud-enabled technologies. Today, Gainwell offers one of the most comprehensive suites of scalable services and solutions on the market — all proven to deliver cost savings, better patient outcomes and an improved provider experience. Equally important to our expanding technologies and results: We bring ideas that bring policies to life.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 10,397
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lexisnexis.jpeg
LexisNexis
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/gainwell-technologies.jpeg
Gainwell Technologies
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
LexisNexis
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Gainwell Technologies
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

LexisNexis has 21.21% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Gainwell Technologies in 2026.

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

LexisNexis cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Gainwell Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gainwell Technologies cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lexisnexis.jpeg
LexisNexis
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Exploitation of unpatched vulnerability (React2Shell)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Exploitation of unpatched React2Shell vulnerability in frontend application
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unpatched Vulnerability (React2Shell)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gainwell-technologies.jpeg
Gainwell Technologies
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering (Unauthorized Caller Access to Reimbursement Account)
Motivation: Unknown (Potential Financial or Data Theft)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 01/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

LexisNexis company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Gainwell Technologies company.

In the current year, LexisNexis company has reported more cyber incidents than Gainwell Technologies company.

Neither Gainwell Technologies company nor LexisNexis company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Gainwell Technologies company and LexisNexis company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Gainwell Technologies company nor LexisNexis company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither LexisNexis company nor Gainwell Technologies company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither LexisNexis nor Gainwell Technologies holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

LexisNexis company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Gainwell Technologies company.

LexisNexis company employs more people globally than Gainwell Technologies company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither LexisNexis nor Gainwell Technologies holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Gainwell Technologies holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Gainwell Technologies holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Gainwell Technologies holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Gainwell Technologies holds HIPAA certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Gainwell Technologies 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